№ 14  - 2005.

Th

The Editorial Board is glad to inform our Readers that this issue of “Fidelity” has articles in English, Russian and Spanish Languages.

С удовлетворением сообщаем, что в этом номере журнала “Верность” помещены статьи на английском, испанском  и русском языках..

Contents -  Оглавление

1.    We need to return to ROCOR ideology. Bishop Dionysius of  Novgorod and Tver, Russia

2.    Thoughts on Archbishop Mark's Latest Interview.

3.    Commentary on the Statements of the Committees of the MP and ROCOR. Dimitry Gontscharow.

4.    Remarks on an interview with Archbishop Kirill. 

5.    Обновленчество. Ипод. Н. Шевельчинский

6.    Esta es una charla que fue invitada y programada para el 28 nov / 11 dic 2003 en la Conferencia Pastoral de la Iglesia Ortodoxa Rusa en el Extranjero, Nayack, Nueva York.     Timothy J. Clader, MD                                              

7.  Экуменизм. Ипод. Н. Шевельчинский

***************************************************************************************

                                                                  * * *

                               We need to return to ROCOR ideology

                                          Bishop Dionysius of   Novgorod and Tver, Russia

  It was with a great sense of satisfaction that I read in “Nasha Strana” of the creation of the “Blessed Metropolitan Anthony Society”.  The study of the legacy of Metropolitan Anthony and furthermore, of the founders of the ROCOR, is extremely important today to resist unification with the MP. The ideology of the Fathers of the ROCOR was wholesome and spiritually deep, and could not in the least be summarized as the denial of administrative servitude to the Soviet Patriarchate.  It included also resistance to the theomachist communism and other anti-Christian powers, and the preservation of the purity of Orthodox teaching and of the ideals of the Russian national statehood—that which Archimandrite Konstantin (Zaitsev) called “the great deed of Russism in the face of Apostasy”.   Therefore she guaranteed the vitality of the Church in Exile, guarding her, pushing away from the Soviet Church and from sliding down into Sergianism.  Without resurrecting the wholeness of this ideology, resistance to the MP is impossible.

            The decisions of the Sobors of ROCOR of 2000 and 2001 were first and foremost a “new direction” in the sphere of ideology.  Without a rejection of them, it is impossible to validate validity an independent existence.  Once the MP had been acknowledged as a church equally-endowed with Grace, (“an elder sister” or even “Mother-church”), and since she saved Orthodoxy and is now resurrecting it – with the aid of Sergianism, ecumenism and corruption – then why repent of those aspects which brought it to its eventual success?  And if it is accepted that Sergianism is a political phenomenon, then the “deviation” of the ROCOR from the MP for this reason would be “a schism for political reasons” as the adherents of the MP have frequently repeated.  At any rate, this false dilemma (or the unification with the MP, or the non-canonical schism for political reasons) can be avoided by returning to the ROCOR’s thoughtful original spiritual ideology in all its fullness.

            For this, it is imperative to reject the decisions of the Sobors of 2000 and 2001, which in their ideology create a necessity to unify with the MP.

            Delays with the dialogs, procrastination of decisions on property issues and other issues remind us of the tactics used by Penelope, who, in order to gain some time, would unravel the garment she had woven during the previous day, but this was eventually found out.  This is the path of political crooks, unworthy of the descendants of Russia’s white émigrés.  Time is presently against the ROCOR – her strength is waning, the spirit of her children is weakening.  The MP is therefore not in a hurry to shake the tree, knowing that the fruit will fall on its own to its feet. 

            It is important now to wake people up, to gather up even a few of our believers—those zealots of the previous ROCOR church.  And we’ll see what the future will be.

Nasha Strana No. 2774                                           Translated by M.N. Nekludoff

 *****************************************************************

                          Thoughts on Archbishop Mark’s Latest Interview

The following are reflections upon an interview Archbishop Mark gave on July 13, 2005, which appeared on the website Portal Credo.ru. 

Archbishop Mark is a very well-educated hierarch, born in East Germany, and who came of age in West Germany during the tumultuous, post-war years.  It was a time of social upheaval in the country and the entire spectrum of political beliefs from Left to Right were represented, expounded and aggressively pushed forth.  Caught between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, many German politicians advocated the concept of Realpolitik (German for “politics of reality”).  This was foreign politics based on practical concerns rather than theory or ethics.  It enabled Germany to negotiate with all sides with the hope that it would benefit the country.  It is no surprise that Archbishop Mark’s approach in negotiating union with the Moscow Patriarchate shares common traits with this concept.  It is well evidenced in this latest interview. 

In it, Archbishop Mark speaks with great feeling and Christian love about the hardships endured by the other side during all the years of atheistic rule in the Soviet Union.  He speaks of looking into the eyes of the negotiating partners and trying to sympathize with their experiences.  It is the common, popular idea of not judging a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.  These sentiments are commendable and perfectly reasonable for an archbishop who has devoted most of his life to serving God, but they distract one from the real point of the talks between the two churches.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad fully realizes the difficulties experienced by the faithful during all those years.  Prayers for the emancipation of Russia and its people were said at every liturgy.  Its members are eager for a religious revival to spread throughout the country and are ready to facilitate this goal.  But we cannot hand over the scores of devoted clergy, church members, churches, monasteries, etc. to the Moscow Patriarchate based solely on sentiment.  There are serious differences that commissions from both sides have attempted to resolve.  They produced the documents currently available on the websites, but they provide little comfort to those uneasy about this union and the future.  Instead of categorical statements on the issues at hand, we get legalistic language indicative of a negotiating partner who wants to have it both ways.  Just enough concessions to keep up appearances, while providing cover for the continuation of business as usual.  It is, as they say in Russian, “napisano milom po vode” – written in soap on water.

Archbishop Mark is fond of citing the “Social Concept” passed by the Moscow Synod in 2000 as an example of the repudiation of the past and a promise for the future.  He does so again in this interview.  Archbishop Mark is heartened by the document, but for those more cynical among us, the document can be distilled to the proposition that if a Soviet-style government comes to power, the church will not subordinate itself to it.  That is very reassuring, but it does not excuse the Moscow Patriarchate’s current, continued heavy involvement with a government that just stops short of being a continuation of Soviet rule.

Archbishop Mark goes on to explain, in a matter of fact way, how the overseas parishes of both churches will be blended together and subject to the same administrative and hierarchical oversight.  The same will occur with parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad within Russia.  They will be incorporated into the existing dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate.  To decide the fate of hundreds of faithful followers in such a bureaucratic manner evokes chilling memories of how people were handed over to the Soviets throughout the decades.  This is all while Archbishop Mark admits in the interview that the very issues that divide the churches (sergianism and ecumenism) may live on for some time, kept alive “by inertia.”  Where are we rushing to, when the hierarchs themselves reveal that the conditions for a proper union do not yet exist?  Their answer is always that there is no rush, that it will take time, but then their actions and other statements say just the opposite.  This is why people are uneasy with the whole matter. 

Archbishop Mark adds that this is not meant to be “criticism from within.”  (One wonders, how this is “criticism from within,” if we are not yet part of the Patriarchate.  A Freudian slip, perhaps?)  That even Patriarch Alexy has pointed out irregularities in the practices of the Moscow Church that need to be corrected.  Archbishop Mark is hopeful that together the two churches can work on these challenges and resolve them.  Again, the impression that union must be pushed forward, and then later, the wrinkles will be ironed out.  There is an alternative, though.  The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad could retain its sovereignty, continue to nurture its flocks and allow the passage of time to heal the wounds in Russia.  Then, when the church there is in a healthier state, consider joining together.  A woman who marries an alcoholic in the hope of helping him to stop is usually disappointed to find her husband is still an alcoholic many years later.

Asked about priests in Russia who left the Patriarchate to join the Church Abroad, Archbishop Mark does not show any great sympathy.  If the priest violated any of the canons, then regardless of which church he finds himself in, he will brought before the church court.  If the priest did not violate any of the canons, the answer is vaguer.  He will be dealt with in a “pastoral” way and not subject to “administrative-bureaucratic” procedures.  If a priest who did come over to the Church Abroad was looking for a defender of his interests, these are not very reassuring words.

The interview concludes with Archbishop Mark being asked about those who oppose union and would consider splitting off from the Church Abroad.  He states that anyone considering a schism is already outside of the catholic tradition of the church.  So much for allowing church members to have a differing point of view.

Then Archbishop Mark ends with these words:  “Certainly, we should make every effort to avoid people feeling that way.  That is why we should strive for everyone to understand and accept the course that the church members will choose together as one.  What that course will be, will be determined after the pan-orthodox conference, when our communal meeting will be concluded.”

If only those open-minded words could be believed in.  If only the Synod of Bishops would abide by the decision of the conference, whether that is to accept the proposition, or postpone union or even reject the idea.  That they will not override the misgivings of the faithful and choose the course of imminent union.  For, unfortunately, the general impression is that the course has been decided, the bishops look forward to the conference to support it and then the Synod of Bishops will make it official. 

************************************************************************

               Commentary on the Statements of the Committees of the Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Church Abroad

– as posted on the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Dimitri Gontscharow July 2005

The official Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) website has posted a series of position papers that resulted from the efforts of the ROCOR and Moscow Patriarchate (MP) committees working on union of the two jurisdictions. The committees have had quite a few meetings, but the resultant documents are thin in specifics and full of broad statements that provide mostly general information. What is most alarming is there seems to be little to no input from the ROCOR side. Despite several uses of the word “joint” to describe the work or the positions, the documents repeat the views that the MP has held from the very beginning of the process. There is also scant evidence of the MP yielding on any of the points that separated the two churches; sergianism and ecumenism, or any other issue for that matter. It is apparent this union will occur with the MP holding fast to all its positions and ROCOR conceding all of its terms.

The general impression is one of a white-wash of the past. An optimist might say it is beneficial to start from a clean slate and work together for the good of all Orthodox in Russia and Abroad. A realist would say this is just another example of historical revisionism, so popular in the Soviet Union, where photographs were altered to remove public figures no longer acceptable to the regime. The documents selectively cite ROCOR statements vaguely conciliatory, while ignoring the many statements by ROCOR hierarchs critical of the Moscow church and which recommended caution in any dealings with Moscow.

It is also distressing that the tone of the documents indicates a complete capitulation to the Moscow church. To surrender can sometimes leave the hope to fight another day or at least retain some dignity. To capitulate poses the danger of losing one’s identity completely and refuting all that one stands for. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will cease to exist after union is completed. There will be a thin veneer of autonomy, but without autocephaly we will simply be the North American, S. American, Australian, etc. diocese/division of the Moscow Patriarchate, subject to its slightest whims.

The following is a review of the highlights of the documents:

“Editor’s Foreword:”

The tone of revisionism in the documents is set from the beginning here. The editor points out that an analysis of the historical past of the Russian Church was not conducted by the committees, nor were individuals discussed in particular. Thus sweeping all the past actions of the MP under the rug and leaving the matter of Metropolitan Sergey alone.

It also prepares the ROCOR laity for the disappointment of not even being able to remain an autocephalous church. It repeats the assertion that ROCOR was always considered part of the Russian Orthodox Church and therefore could not be eligible for autocephaly.

“On the Work of the Committees of the Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Church Abroad:”

- the proposed union would confirm the canonical legitimacy and supremacy of the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by the Moscow Patriarch.

- ROCOR would have self-rule as pertaining to priests, education, administrative, budgetary, property and lay church matters, but any decisions outside of the ROCOR hierarchy’s authority would be resolved by the Patriarch and the Moscow Synod. (One can imagine how elastic that definition will be, to suit the MP’s needs in any given situation.)

- ROCOR bishops are considered part of this Moscow Synod, but receive their legitimacy and voice from the Patriarch.

- the many statements, positions, edicts, documents, etc. made by both churches while separated during the decades of communist rule in Russia will be considered no longer in force after the union. (Thus nullifying all the principled statements made by the ROCOR metropolitans in their defense of the faith and critical of the MP and its hierarchy.)

- the statement of the “Social Concept” of the church’s relation to the state put forth in 2000 by the MP will be considered the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church and any other view will be considered no longer in force or invalid.

- the request in 2004 by ROCOR to the Greek churches “in opposition” [to the Orthodox churches involved in ecumenism, etc.] to establish official relations, with all parties having canonical status, will be considered null and void when union with MP is achieved.

- the canonical status of priests who went over to MP or vice versa will be decided by a subcommittee. (The MP has already alluded that priests ordained in Russia by ROCOR will have to be demoted and ordained again by the MP. Explaining this now, along with all the other information, would be too dangerous. That bitter pill will have to be saved for a later date, probably after the all-ROCOR conference in San Francisco next year. By then official union will be declared and the priests will have no choice, if they wish to remain in the church.)

- ROCOR dioceses and parishes within Russia will fall under the auspices of the MP, since it will be considered the sole Russian Orthodox Church.

“On Relations between the Orthodox Church and other non-Orthodox Faiths and Interdenominational Organizations:”

- the Russian Orthodox Church must bear witness to Orthodoxy wherever it can, in whatever type of setting.

- even the Church Abroad was involved in interdenominational meetings to profess its faith.

- membership in any organization that is clearly antithetical to Christianity must be reviewed.

- attempts at making all faiths equal to each other must be resisted.

- participation in services with non-Orthodox clergy is prohibited.

- having said all of this, working together with non-Orthodox faiths when involved in social causes, etc. is encouraged. Participation in events for the common good, which include representatives of other faiths is permitted. Though fervent belief in Orthodoxy must be maintained and professed.

(This last paragraph provides an escape clause for the MP to remain a member of the World Council of Churches (WCC). In fact, a meeting between the Patriarch and WCC leaders recently took place in Moscow.)

“On the Relationship Between Church and State:”

- (This document discusses the general principle of maintaining some level of communication and cooperation between church and state, though it condemns cooperation that brings harm to the church. Here, a quote from a conference of bishops from the Church Abroad is provided to show that they considered it necessary, though it is taken out of context. Then the MP’s “social concept” from 2000 is also quoted as it pertains to the faithful resisting the government when their beliefs are threatened. That one must remain loyal to one’s country, but serve God above all else. The document is general in nature and is largely an attempt to show that the MP is not beholden to the government, though its actions and other statements say otherwise. The next document, “Commentary on the document ‘On Relations…’”, is more specific and discusses the actions taken by Met. Sergey Stragorodskiy.)

“Commentary on the Joint Statement of the Committees of the Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Church Abroad – ‘On the Relationship Between Church and State’”

- this document admits that Metropolitan Sergey’s “Declaration” was one of the major reasons for the separation of the two churches. (A small but significant detail – the document states the separation occurred between the Russian Orthodox Church and its component part abroad, thus cementing the assertion that the church abroad was never an independent part of the Church. Though true perhaps in the beginning, there have been arguments made that the Church Abroad evolved into an independent entity later. Attempts from both sides have been made to delineate the exact status of the churches, but all such discussions will be swept away in the rush to union.)

- a quote from the Patriarch is repeated in which he admits there were some wrong elements in the “Declaration.” (But his statements always stop from complete condemnation.)

- that Met. Sergey’s policies were directed towards the preservation of the church from the atheistic regime. Some of those clerics/people who did not understand this did come to their senses later and joined the MP, others were faced with the danger of becoming a sect. (Again, the rehabilitation of Met. Sergey’s reputation continues, while classifying all naysayers as fringe sect members.)

- Met. Sergey’s policies allowed the church to rebuild itself during and after World War II. (The opposite opinion is that the soviet government allowed the church to exist for its own purposes and Met. Sergey’s policies facilitated those purposes.)

- there is a glowing tribute to the patriotic duty of the MP bishops and priests during the war. (And a crass mention that even Archbishop John of Shanghai prayed for the defeat of the enemy and collected money for the “homeland.” A dubious inclusion, when given without context and a mention of his other views on church matters.)

- it ends by saying that this critical analysis of the “Declaration” should not be construed as a condemnation of Met. Sergey and his actions during the difficult years for the church in the Soviet Union. (Thus, leaving the possibility for future positive statements on his “valiant” efforts and leaving open the possibility of some level of sainthood for Met. Sergey, which has already been mentioned by the Patriarch.)

After reading the documents, one is left with an empty feeling. There is little that is spiritually uplifting in the words. There is no joy in this legalistic hair-splitting. Rather than truly starting from a clean slate, asking forgiveness for the past and being hopeful for the future, we have shallow justifications for despicable acts. There is only self-serving, self-centered mendacities that absolve the Moscow church from all responsibility. There is little mention of the part played abroad by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. No gratitude, no welcoming words, no brotherly love in Christ, just something akin to a hostile corporate takeover. The ramifications of which, we have not yet even begun to fully understand.                                            

**************************************************************

The following is a commentary on an interview recently given by Archbishop Kirill on the website pravoslavie.ru.  The interview starts with a short introduction:

Archbishop Kyrill has been a regular member of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and Ruling Bishop of the Dioceseof San Francisco and Western America since 2000.  In November 2003, he was a member of the ROCOR delegation making the first official visit to meet with His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and the members of the Holy Synod of the ROC/MP.

It is surprising to read the comments made below by a senior cleric, and see how infused they are with moral relativism.  There are no absolute truths in that philosophy, only the endless compromise of principles.  It is one of the leading causes for the apostasy so widespread in the world today.  It has no place in matters of the Church.

His comments in the interview gloss over so many important points, all in a desire to please.  It is interesting that they come so soon after an interview with Bishop Gabriel, in which he offered some mild criticisms of the Documents.  Apparently, the public relations campaign to make these documents palatable to the flock goes on.

Q.:       Are you satisfied, Your Eminence, with the published documents of the joint Commissions approved by the Holy Synods of the Russian Church Abroad andthe Moscow Patriarchate? What in Your Eminence's opinion do these documents need to achieve in order to move towards unity?

A.:        I am happy with the results of the work of both the joint Commissions and with the meetings of our Synod of Bishops, which examined these materialsseveral times, then approved and confirmed them. 

Q.:       Who could have imagined in the recent past that the two parts of the Russian Church could come to a joint Orthodox view of matters of principle regarding church-state relations, the "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 and the participation of Orthodox in the ecumenical movement, that is, those questions which have divided the Russian Church for so many years?

The “joint” statement acknowledges some “errors” in the “Declaration,” but considers it a well-intentioned act meant to “preserve” the church.  That was not the position of the Russian Church Abroad in the past.  As to ecumenism, the “joint” statement provides some general guidelines of when to avoid serving together, but also leaves plenty of room for the church to remain a member in ecumenical organizations.  That was never condoned by the Russian Church Abroad.  Hard to call that a joint view that has overcome the division between the churches.  More like abandoning your principles.

Looking back, I regret only that in the document "On the Relationship Between the Church and State" the mistakes of the Synodal period of our history were not noted: when Peter the Great, disposing of the patriarchate and forming the "Holy Ruling Synod" with an ober-procurator, in fact placed the Russian Church into an extremely strange, and, strictly speaking, uncanonical situation, turning it into a government institution. At times, under Peter the Great's successors, the state's "care" for the Church turned into open and torturous persecution. Sometimes the civil authorities illegally and unfairly involved themselves in church matters, appointment bishops and violated the rules of the Church. One tsar, for example, issued an order to shorten the Gospel readings performed during all-night vigil services on the holidays of the Mother of God, because he "did not care for" the words spoken by the Mother of God: "He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree" (Luke 1:52). Other errors and sins were committed by monarchs who had a negative view of the Church, but they did not cause the bitter division which occurred in the 20th century, when the atheists seized power. That is probably why these moments in our history were not touched upon.

The reason these “moments in our history” were not touched upon in the documents was because even the propagandists in Moscow know better than to include such dubious statements in an official document.  Though that does not stop them from being uttered later to provide spin on the documents.

It is an interesting turn of events when a bishop of the Russian Church Abroad serves the new masters in Moscow by making such comments.  In order to soften somehow the treatment of the church by the Soviet regime, we now have to point out the misdeeds of the tsars.  As wrong and misguided the tsars may have been in their treatment of the church, it is inconceivable to compare this to what was perpetrated by the Soviet regime.  It is a prime example of moral relativism to say that all governments are guilty of missteps, therefore all are equally to blame and all must ask for forgiveness. 

Still, this document says what this relationship ought to be, and what must be avoided if­God forbid­persecutions of the faithful resume. If they do, both parts of the Russian Church agreed that the faithful must be called upon to "openly confess the truth and be prepared to follow the path of witness and martyrdom for Christ," following the example of our beloved New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. Besides that, the famous "Declaration" of 1927 is evaluated, which, as the document states, served as the beginning of the administrative rift between the Church in the Fatherland and the part of the Church abroad. The relationship between the Church and the Soviet state resulting from the "Declaration" were deemed incorrect and not corresponding to the norms of church-state relations and church law, and the "Declaration" itself is called "a temptation for many children of the Russian Orthodox Church" and a "morbid, tragic compromise" which was considered by many not to be the free voice of the Church. Rejected also was any attempt to justify the unnatural relationship between the Church and the God-battling state through use of Holy Scripture.

It was crucial to achieve all this in order to approach unity, for, as it is emphasized in the joint document, only "[t]he rejection of the course ofthe Russian Church in her relations with the state as reflected in the 'Declaration' opens the path to the fullness of brotherly communion," which the reposed fathers of the Russian Church Abroad spoke of. I think that, as successors of the founding fathers of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, we can say with complete confidence that this document completely agrees with the positions held to by our Church in her official documents, and that it reflects the correct ecclesiastical evaluation of the course chosen by Metropolitan Sergius.

That is a convenient statement to make to inform the uninformed, but it is far from the truth of the situation.  It is once again in line with the new approach of selectively citing statements by the Church Abroad that can be twisted into an expression of acceptance of the Moscow church, while ignoring the vast amount of statements made by clerics and laypeople alike critical of it.

Don't the representatives of the Russian Church Abroad demand the condemnation of Patriarch Sergius himself?

For us the most important thing is to condemn the course of church-state relations that he chose, which has already been accomplished. Orthodox Christians cannot condemn an individual. For the Holy Fathers and the teachers of the Church always said that one can condemn sin and untruth, but not the sinner. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself said this in His Gospel. That is why we cannot judge Patriarch Sergius, for he has already appeared before God.

A condemnation of the person is not required, but elevating him to martyr status is an insult to all believers who remained faithful to the Church and especially the New Martyrs.  A judgment on his actions and the “Declaration” could be made and he could be relegated to the past.  Instead, the Moscow Patriarchate has named a monastery after Met. Sergey, complete with his statue in the courtyard.

Are there any analogous cases in the history of the Orthodox Church by which we can judge the actions of Patriarch Sergius?

I personally feel that the situation of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 is similar to the situation in which Patriarch Gregory V of Constantinople found himself in 1821, when the Greeks, seeking the overthrow of the Muslim yoke and the reestablishment of an independent Orthodox state, rose up against the Turks. Right after the Greek revolt, the Turks destroyed the Church of the Live-Bearing Wellspring in Constantinople, desecrating holy icons, looting churches and monasteries, wandering through the streets during Passion Week and killing Orthodox people. In his "decree of excommunication," issued by order of the Muslims, Gregory V invoked "eternal anathema" to those who revolted, and defrocked the clergymen and monks of Mt Athos who supported them, and deemed them "worthy of the fires of Gehenna." This patriarchal damnation frightened no one. Still, the Greeks, including the clergy, did not condemn their patriarch, seeing that his terrible decree was coerced.

In the Western American Diocese, where St John (Maximovich, +1966) labored, we have a complete set of minutes of the Councils of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. In the Minutes of the Council of Bishops of 1953, in which the question of our relationship towards the ROC/MP is discussed, we find the story of the late Archbishop Panteleimon of Canada, who, while still in the ROC/MP, saw Metropolitan Sergius and Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich). At the time (this was sometime in the 1930's), the patriarchate itself was located in a small house on Bauman Lane. Metropolitan Sergius occupied 4 small rooms. At night, everyone would disperse, fearing arrest. While he was alone with him, Vladyka asked Metropolitan Sergius about his "Declaration." Metropolitan Sergius replied that he signed the "Declaration" in the belief that his relatives would be freed, along with all the bishops and clergymen who were imprisoned, but that he was deceived. When he asked how he was doing, Metropolitan Sergius replied: "our lives are difficult, so difficult that it is difficult to express." Meanwhile, Archbishop Leonty of Chile (+1971), who was able to travel to Moscow in 1935, said at the same Council that Metropolitan Sergius intentionally did not work for the Bolsheviks. He was isolated. His beloved cell-attendant, Hierodeacon Afanassy, was sent to prison camp, and his closest people were removed from him. So he was left alone and lived asthough in an enemy camp.

No one can forget the horror experienced by the representatives of the Church during the godless repressions of the 20th century. Some things were done only after lengthy, brutal persecutions, and not from free will. That is why I think that Patriarch Sergius himself should not be condemned, although we did condemn the "Declaration" so that this mistake would not be repeated in the future.

Again, moral relativism in full force.  One can always find seemingly analogous instances in the past, but one can also just as easily find examples of individuals not compromising their integrity and suffering whatever hardships occur as a result.  There have also been reports that Met. Sergey willingly cooperated with the regime and helped in the persecution of the bishops that opposed his candidacy as head of the church. 

The comments also exhibit the modern-day trend to over-sentimentalize people and events to forestall any real assessment of them.  “The criminal can’t be so bad, he loved his mother after all.” 

In his recent interview, Bishop Gabriel, Secretary of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, said that the majority of the flock of the ROCOR is against the process of reconciliation, and in general does not consider the ROC/MP to be "a part of the Russian Church." What can you say in this regard? I recall the words of Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev), my late predecessor on the Western American cathedra, who during the Council of Bishops of 1994 said that "almost all our clergymen desire and await an attempt to communicate with the Moscow Patriarchate." At the time, I did not share his opinion. Other bishops said that many in the Russian Church Abroad complained about the fact that we undertook no steps towards healing the wounds of division. This was more than ten years ago! Thank God, the events of the last several years and the positive processes in the life of the Church in Russia helped both parts of the Russian Church to overcome all sorts of obstacles and begin a frank and constructive dialog, which we hope will lead to the resolution of all questions and problems that divide us.

Yes, to “communicate” with the Moscow Patriarchate, but not allow them to swallow us whole without changing any of their views.  Also, not only did Bishop Kirill not share his opinion, but wrote a strong statement condemning contact with Moscow.  To go from that extreme to the one evidenced by the comments in this interview is very peculiar indeed. 

How does your flock now view dialog with the ROC/MP?

I think that most of our clergymen and parishioners support the position of the Synod of Bishops and accept this process with complete calm, which is evidence by the fact that all the petitions that were once sent to the Synod of Bishops by the enemies of reconciliation did not gain the support of our clergymen and flock. Literally all of our priests and parishioners who were able to visit Russia in recent years and became acquainted with church life feel that it is necessary to continue the dialog already begun with the Church in Russia. Many of them say that the renascent Russian Church needs the spiritual support of her sons and daughters scattered throughout the world. And I feel that we are obligated to participate in this rebirth, through which we can enrich ourselves spiritually and intellectually.

Playing on the nationalistic sentiments of the flock is an old trick.  Also, if those that oppose immediate union were so inconsequential, the conference in San Francisco in the Spring of 2006 would not have been called.  It is exactly because the dissatisfaction among the clergymen and flock is so great, that the Synod of Bishops felt obliged to convene the conference. 

Again, no one argues that there is a significant religious revival in Russia and we must do everything to support it, but that does not mean we rush into union with the current Moscow hierarchy .

Do your parishioners consider the ROC/MP a Church?

At one time some individual bishops and clergymen here in the diaspora said that the Church in Russia is "without grace," that She was "not a Church," but this does not correlate with the actual position of the entire fullness of the Russian Church Abroad. This was not said by our previous First Hierarchs: Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky). This was never stated by a single Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. We do not have the right to say this­this would be canonically and ecclesiastically ignorant. In general, the question of "grace" belongs to God, and mortals cannot judge this. 

B. Kirill is very selective in his choice of prelates.  He mentions only the first two hierarchs, because the next two, Metropolitans Philaret and Vitaliy, were more critical of the Moscow church. 

It is true that “mortals” cannot judge a church to be without Grace, but “mortals” can decide when a church is in error, not true to Orthodoxy and break off relations with that church, lest it lead it into further sin.

At the Council of 1953, our own St John, speaking of the acceptance by ROCOR of clergymen from the ROC/MP, reminded everyone that the Council of Bishops of 1938 discussed the possibility of concelebrating with the clergymen of the ROC/MP who were located abroad, and it was admitted that only Metropolitan Sergius himself is excluded from communion with the ROCOR and that his sin does not extend to his successors, which Holy New Martyr Metropolitan Kiril of Kazan said also. This shows that the ROCOR always recognized the ROC/MP as a Church truly possessing grace.

In 1938, there was still hope that the Soviet regime would crumble and contact had to be maintained in order to be ready to return to the homeland.  That is the problem with all the quotes from the early hierarchs that are used by these commissions.  The Church Abroad prayed that Russia would be freed from the atheistic regime and could not believe it would last for 70 years.  The comments made by the two later hierarchs are more applicable exactly because they witnessed more of the history of the Soviet regime.  They also observed the behavior of the Moscow church throughout all those decades.

Are you not troubled that on the day that the materials of the joint Commissions were published, a report appeared in the media about a meeting between His Holiness Patriarch Alexy and the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches? Doesn't the visit of a delegation of the WCC to Russia prove that the ROC/MP is involved in the ecumenical movement, which is a heresy in the opinion of the ROCOR?

This doesn't concern me at all. For at this meeting, the representatives of the ROC/MP were able to achieve the goal of persuading the WCC to abandon joint prayers between Orthodox and the heterodox. From now on, at meetings and assemblies of the WCC, the Orthodox will pray and hold services separately from representatives of other confessions. Did members of the WCC's delegation pray with representatives of the ROC/MP? No. Did they participate in divine services in Moscow? Again, no. True, they attended services at Dormition Cathedral of Moscow's Kremlin, and at Holy Trinity Lavra and other places, but they did not directly participate in the divine services. There were also no joint prayers.

But our bishops always spoke out against all sorts of ecumenical services, stressing that this contradicts church law. When an Orthodox clergyman,side by side with Protestant "bishops," blesses the people during some joint prayers, we felt that this was unnecessary theater and that it does no one any good at all. Also, our bishops spoke out against the so-called "branch theory," the teaching of the WCC that different confessions offer the same salvation. In particular, Metropolitan Philaret (Vozenesensky), during the Cold War often spoke of such things in his "sorrowful epistles" addressed to the bishops of the Local Orthodox Churches. In 1983, the ROCOR anathematized the "branch theory." In the document entitled "On the Attitude of the Orthodox Church Towards the Heterodox and Towards Inter-Confessional Organizations," both sides condemn the "branch theory" as a heresy, and reject prayerful communion with those of other faiths.

A few clarifications were made in the document on how we must carry on our witness in the heterodox world. Both parts of the Russian Church recognized the permissibility of benevolent cooperation with the heterodox in various areas. For example, we have priests who fight against abortion, drug abuse and same-sex marriage alongside people of other religions, they participate in humanitarian projects, etc. Dialog with the heterodox is not condemned either. For such people as St Tikhon, Patriarch of All Russia the Confessor, St Nikolai (Kasatkin), Archbishop of Japan, and his fellow-laborer in Christ, St Agafangel (Preobrazhensky), Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky, +1912), Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky) of blessed memory, VV Bolotov and many others did not shun meetings and conversations with representatives of other Christian confessions, witnessing the truth of Orthodoxy. For us this is a real problem, for we live in direct juxtaposition with the heterodox world, that is why we need clarity in these matters. 

This is all well and good, on the surface.  In order for Moscow to continue being involved in ecumenical organizations, they concede the ability to serve with clergy from other faiths.  But being present during gatherings where shamans bless the event or other such manifestations occur, whether you are officially serving with them or not, is not conducive to defending Orthodoxy.  Instead, it adds to the modern-day belief that all faiths are equal and acceptable.  Should we share the stage with Wiccans and other such questionable groups?

Also, no one would deny the Moscow church if it were involved in international organizations of a benevolent nature.  It is a different matter when they participate in organizations/meetings with a clear anti-Western/anti-American bent, to assist the Russian government in expanding its sphere of influence.

Your Eminence, why did ROCOR, which always considered itself only a part of the Russian Church, perform the consecration of Myrrh in 1950? Is this not the prerogative of the independent Local Orthodox Churches?

Yes, but the fact of the matter is that the norm of receiving holy Myrrh by an autonomous part of the Church from the central administration of its own Local Church became impossible since 1917. Until 1950, the Synod of Bishops received its Myrrh from the Church of Constantinople or Serbia, who had always been ready and willing to provide it without delay. After 1950, our bishops, already in America, decided that the consecration of holy Myrrh by the central administration of ROCOR was the closest approximation of the ecclesiastical-canonical norm, though there was no unanimity on this question at the Council of Bishops in 1950. Still, the consecration of holy Myrrh was performed by Metropolitan Anastassy and St John (Maximovich) at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville. 

Receiving holy Myrrh from the central administration of a Local Church is one of the fundamental canonical principles of broad autonomy, and so if the process of reconciliation with the ROC/MP is concluded successfully, we will reestablish the proper ecclesiastical order and tradition.

The “proper ecclesiastical order and tradition” will be that we will receive the myrrh from the Moscow church, which after the union, will be correct canonically.  It is just sad to consider how many values and principles that have been pushed aside to make that union happen.  Where are the statements from the Moscow church hailing the great efforts made by the Church Abroad to preserve the faith in the diaspora?  Where are the statements respectful of our traditions and history?  Nowhere to be found. 

What do you wish for our Orthodox readers in Russia and abroad?

I would like to express the wish that we always remember that in this world we are all students and not teachers, and that religious education never ends. That is why we must study the history of our Church, the essence of ecclesiastical laws, we must read the Gospel and the works of the Holy Fathers and the teachers of the Orthodox Church. Here we will find the answers to many questions and we will see the remarkable wisdom of the Church, and in the life of faith we will find consolation, peace and genuine joy.

All true, but we cannot ignore current facts in the hope that things will change in the future.  We need to make a sober appraisal of the facts and stand up for the truth.  Be a force for change, not an apologist for the behavior of others.  It is hopelessly optimistic to think our goodwill will be appreciated and we will be allowed to influence the greater body, once we are a part of the Moscow church.  It brings to mind the Russian fable of Slon i Moska (The Elephant and Moska) by the famous Ivan Krylov.  The elephant walks through the streets of the city with a dog, named Moska, nipping at its heels, barking all the while.  As it goes off into the distance, Moska feels happy with itself for driving the elephant away, not realizing that the elephant never noticed the dog and paid it no mind.

**************************************************************

                                                  Обновленчество

                                      Ипод. Н. Шевельчинский (см. начало в № 13) 

     В ответ на книгу проф. С.В. Троицкого «О неправде карловацкого раскола» прот. Г. Граббе писал:

«Трудно судить лиц, которые в такой сложной церковной обстановке, созданной Советской властью, совершили роковые ошибки. Никто из нас не может считать митрополита, впоследствии Патр. Сергия сознательным предателем Церкви. Он, конечно, искал путей для обеспечения физического существования ее. Но Церковь не является ни политической, ни общественной организацией. Она есть Тело Христово, и жизнь Ее определяется совсем иными законами. Она победила мир не компромиссами с язычеством, а исповеданием истины и кровью мучеников. Церковь, прежде всего, призвана свидетельствовать в мире истину. И когда она сталкивается с принципиальными врагами этой истины составившим заговор для полного искоренения веры, то надо иметь в виду, что всякая готовность их к соглашению с Церковью не может не иметь за собою какого-то враждебного для Церкви плана.

К большевикам не в меньшей степени, чем к фарисеям, можно отнести слова Спасителя: «Ваш отец диавол; и вы хотите исполнять похоти отца вашего. Он был человекоубийца от начала и не устоял в истине, ибо нет в нем истины. Когда говорит он ложь, говорит свое, ибо он лжец и отец лжи». (Ио. 8:44).31

Выше мы привели мнения и рассуждения церковных людей. Теперь же вслушаемся к тому человеку, который сможет нам разъяснить причины, в силу которых декларация была «принята» власть имущими и легализация смогла быть осуществлена, ибо все, как будто, сходятся во мнении, что декларация явилась в результате давления большевиков.

«Пересмотр обновленцами социально-этических воззрений традиционного русского православия, - читаем у Гордиенко, - подрывал престиж Русской православной церкви в целом, поскольку значительная часть ее духовенства и прихожан продолжали декларировать свою приверженность «вере отцов» в полном ее объеме, не задумываясь над тем, что они остаются тем самым приверженцами реакционных общественных идей и нравственных требований. (выд. нами) Обличения обновленцами реакционной социальной позиции церкви заставили некоторых из них задуматься, проникнуться сомнениями в правильности их ориентации на русское православие. Иные под влиянием таких сомнений уходили из патриаршей церкви, справедливо дискредитированной обновленцами, но не к обновленцам, а к неверующим…» (стр. 204)

Здесь указывается настоящая цель советской власти в навязывании Церкви курса обновленцев – «к неверующим»!

 «Следовательно, - продолжает Гордиенко, - в тех конкретных исторических условиях идеи «коммунистического христианства» «работали» только на обновленцев, оставляя староцерковникам одни издержки. Если бы обновленцы вышли победителями, разработанные ими новые социально-этические воззрения подняли бы в глазах верующих трудящихся престиж всего русского православия, модернизированного в обновленческом духе…» (стр.203)

Но, к сожалению, для «научного» атеиста, победили «староцерковники». Однако, каким, интересно, образом этим «староцерковникам» удалось снискать себе «благопочтение», - прекратить быть в глазах богоборцев – «приверженцами реакционных общественных идей и нравственных требований» и сделать, чтобы идеи «коммунистического христианства» «заработали» бы и на них? Ответ этому содержится в дальнейшем изложении госатеиста:

«Лишь много лет спустя, когда ушли из жизни активные участники обновленческого движения,  и само обновленчество,  стало достоянием далекого прошлого, Московская патриархия стала использовать многие элементы этого наследия, преподнося их своим приверженцам как плоды собственной интенсивной богословской деятельности.» (там же)

«…Поднимая на щит свой традиционализм, помогший ей одолеть обновленцев, Московская патриархия представала и перед прихожанами своих храмов (особенно теми, кто возвратился в патриаршую церковь из обновленчества, униатства или карловацкого раскола) (а почему Гордиенко умалчивает здесь об Американской и Парижской юрисдикциях, вернувшихся тогда на некоторое время в лоно Московской Патриархии?) и перед другими поместными церквами в качестве ревностного охранителя православной веры и незыблемости православной обрядности, всего уклада церковной жизни». (стр. 76)

После такого использования «староцерковниками» «многих элементов обновленческого наследия» большевикам, разумеется, не было более надобности поддерживать обновленцев, за которыми народ и так не пошел. Ибо с декларацией был внесен в православную Церковь основной стержень обновленчества (не бороды, посты или второбрачие), - а служба интересам советского (богоборческого) государства!)

 Лев Регельсон писал:

«Курс на уничтожение Церкви, как и вообще всякой религии, неуклонно проводился с ноября 1917 года вплоть до Великой Отечественной войны.32  При этом, однако, задача властей заключалась в том, чтобы уничтожаемая Церковь не только не взывала к сопротивлению со стороны верующей народной массы, но в процессе своего уничтожения помогла перевоспитать эту массу в духе преданности советской власти и идеалам коммунизма. Другой, не менее важной задачей, которую недооценивают многие исследователи этого вопроса, была борьба за международный престиж советской власти, необходимый для ее выживания и экспансии ее идеологии.

Этим задачам и служило советское законодательство о Церкви.»33

Иерарх, способствовавший этому законодательству,  в книге Гордиенко характеризуется так: «Политический и церковный опыт митр. Сергия, его гибкость, и, наконец, авторитет – он был одним из старейших иерархов, пользовавшийся до революции репутацией либерала34 – помогли ему одолеть своих  противников и овладеть инициативой. Однако решающую роль сыграло то обстоятельство, что митр. Сергий зарекомендовал себя давним и стойким приверженцем курса на признание законности Советской власти и оказание последней всесторонней поддержки со стороны духовенства и верующих. Еще в 1922 году он высказался за лояльность по отношению к Советскому правительству, а в 1923 году призвал к такой лояльности духовенство и прихожан своей епархии. Взяв на себя церковное руководство, он не только объявил себя сторонником Советской власти и приверженцем нормализации церковно-государственных взаимоотношений, но и предпринял ряд практических мер по укреплению новой социальной-политической ориентации церкви». (стр. 43)

В книге «Патриарх Сергий и его духовное наследство» Москва, 1947 г.) высказано то же самое, только без некоторых подробностей: « (встав во главе Церкви) Митрополит Сергий обратился с просьбой зарегистрировать патриаршую Церковь в Советском государстве, а его, Митрополита Сергия, - во главе Священного Синода и Патриаршей Церкви, как заместителя Патриаршего Местоблюстителя. Просьба Митрополита Сергия (в то самое время, когда оба законных Местоблюстителя мучились в ссылках! – РИС) была исполнен7а.»35

Если сложить обе вышеприведенные выдержки, то у нас и получится то самое, о чем нам так настойчиво и непрестанно утверждают – «мудрейшая великомудрость» митр. Сергия, которая побудила, по словам (послевоенного) проф. С.В. Троицкого – Советскую власть прекратить гонения на Церковь.36

Здесь просим читателя задуматься: что подразумевается под «Церковью»? – Соборная Русская Православная Церковь или же административный центр? Где мученичество, а где мучение?..

Однако с новой социально-политической ориентацией церкви не все согласились, о чем и повествует далее Гордиенко: <