No 20 - 2005

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

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

Contents  - Оглавление

1. "Русское зарубежье на распутье". Вл. Ильин

2. "The Now Silent Voice of the Russian Orthodox Church".

3. "Report".  Privy Counselor T.

4.  "Доклад". Благочинный Уральского округа РПЦЗ. Протоиерей В. Карелин

5.  "La Ley de Dios".  Metropolitan Philaret.

6.  "Вече и князь". Архимандрит Константин (Зайцев)

7.  "Православие". Протопр. М. Помазанский

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

Русское зарубежье на распутье.

 Вл. Ильин

     Живя в захолустье,  и,  не имея возможности ознакомиться с различными точками зрения по важным вопросам, стоящим перед эмиграцией, мне хотелось бы вынести некоторые мысли на страницы "Верности” в порядке обсуждения, с тем, чтобы узнать мнения других по поводу событий, касающихся Росcии и эмиграции.

Я давно наблюдаю над процессом сближения Московской патриархии и Зарубежной церкви. Этот вопрос интересует меня не сам по себе, а в связи с другими явлениями, имеющими отношение к нынешнему всплеску интереса к русской эмиграции. Поток событий и мероприятий, связанных с «возвращением» прошлого только набирает силу. Российское гражданство вручается дочери генерала Деникина, Марине Грей, и А.Д. Шмеману, сыну белого офицера и заведующему кадетским музеем в Париже. Чем же связаны такие разные процессы как перезахоронение праха генерала Деникина и объединение церквей? Тем, что нынешняя власть отчаянно ищет легитимности.

     Издалека, нам часто кажется, что власть в Российской Федерации крепка, и даже излишне. Пишут в американских газетах о движении в сторону авторитарности. Но, читая заявления представителей той же власти, создается впечатление как раз противоположное. Власти в смерть боятся «цветной революции», преподнося таковую как закабаление России международным капиталом. Между тем, в России уже сейчас захороняются радиоактивные отходы из других стран. Разве можно ниже пасть? Истинная причина страха перед "«цветной революцией» это простое шкурничество: боязнь бюрократов и политической элиты потерять власть и вместе с ней весьма денежные места.

     С поиском легитимности связано беспрецедентно помпезное празднование «60-летия Великой Победы». Празднование победы во Второй мировой войне (правильно было сказано когда-то: Великой Отечественной войной может ее называть только тот, кто считает сталинский Советский Союз своим отечеством) это часть создаваемого мифа о «единой России» – советский плюс белой. В результате подаются образы Путина как последователя Ивана Ильина, и даже готовится перезахоронение того же Ильина, совместно с Деникиным, в Москве. Но при этом Ленин и Сталин остаются на месте!

     Всюду подчеркивается и преемственность Советского союза по отношению к дореволюционной России. Так, история нынешних государственных учреждений и министерств протягивается прямым образом из далекого прошлого в наши дни. ФСБ, КГБ, ГПУ, ЧК и царская Охрана – это одно учреждение. То же и Министерство внутренних дел, где просвещенный Столыпин стоит в одном ряду с палачом Ежовым, причем проводится мысль, что и тот и другой подавляли противогосударственную крамолу насилием, следовательно, различия между ними нет.

     Конечно, судя по опросам, у Путина достаточно высокая поддержка среди населения. Но эта поддержка едва ли является безоговорочной. Для многих Путин всего лишь гарант стабильности, лучше, чем пьяница Ельцин да мошенник Березовский. Более того, в 2008 г. он должен уйти, передав власть выигравшему на выборах. Тут-то и начинаются страхи у нынешнего руководства страной: что же станет с ними? В попытке консолидировать за собой народ и ведутся эти акции примирения и объединения. Как коммунистам всегда было выгодно строить единый фронт и монолитные общественные организации, долженствующие показать объединение всех и вся, так и нынешние власти желают создать впечатление, что Россия императорская, белая, советская и зарубежная – это одно целое. Поэтому и появляются новые байки, например, что Деникин в свое время (1944 г.) хотел было вступить в Красную армию. Как это вяжется с тем, что он в 1945-м году уехал в Америку, почему-то никто не хочет объяснять.

     По последним данным, патриарх ожидает передачи иконы Курско-Коренной. Обогрела она души эмигрантов, но, мол, «Буде! – Пора ее вернуть». Так мы и останемся ни с чем. Но ведь если икону вернуть, создается прецедент: каким же образом тогда защищать любую церковную собственность, хоть на Святой Земле, хоть в Америке? Уже сейчас выходит так, что в РФ большинство «эмигрантов» – никогда не эмигрировавших из России, ибо родились уже за границей, но, несомненно, русских по культуре, духу и воспитанию – считают русскими только по мере того, что они разевают рот (и выворачивают карманы) перед родившимися в СССР. В свое время, после Второй мировой войны, когда начался приток совпатриотов в СССР из Европы, таких наивных людей, подверженных ностальгии по русским березам, называли «подберезовиками», и говорят, особенно тешились над ними в лагерях. Сейчас фирма слегка поменялась, и нас оттуда бывшие номенклатурщики – до мозгов костей советские люди – поучают такой «русской истории» и «русской культурой», где Демьян Бедный и Емельян Ярославский смешаны в одну кучу с Достоевским и Св. Сергием Радонежским. А мы все еще слушаем, разинув рты, со слезами на глазах, и вот-вот да скажем, «Да, неправы были наши отцы, пойдя против народа, ведь только Сталин спас Российскую Государственность!» Мне же кажется, что именно благодаря Сталину нынешнее падение России столь глубоко. А единственный ответ и выход из тупика – это отвержение всего советского и возвращение на устои Императорской России. Любая попытка перемешать все – а именно это и есть «русская идея» нынешних властей – загонит Россию глубже в тупик. Мешать добро и зло невозможно.

     Мне лично противно слышать заявления о православии из уст вчерашних комсомольцев, а сегодняшних ханжей. Далеко не все Савлы способны стать Павлами: многие преобразуются в фарисеев. Не хочу огульно обвинять всех недавно крещеных: среди них большое количество порядочных людей и добросовестных христиан, но такие, как правило, как раз и не трубят и не обличают на каждом углу. С детства нас учили, что есть советская власть с одной стороны и стонущий под ее гнетом русский народ с другой. Но столкновение с этим народом показало, что за 70 с лишним лет, в какой-то значительной своей части, он действительно стал советским и гордиться этим, хотя когда выгодно, может и запеть о России.

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

The Now Silent Voice of the Russian Orthodox Church

 "By the beginning of the Second World War… the greater part of those churches that remained did not recognize Metropolitan Sergius." Out of the more than 100 bishops known to be still alive in 1943, Sergius could find only 18 (and some of these were newly consecrated) to elect him "Patriarch" in that year."

From "Russia's Catacomb Saints" by I. M. Andreev and Fr. Seraphim Rose

HOW AND WHY DID THE BISHOPS OF THE MP-WHICH BEGAN WITH ONLY 18 BISHOPS-GROW INTO A CHURCH ORGANIZATION OF ABOUT 150 BISHOPS WHILE THE 82 BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CATACOMB CHURCH DIMINISHED TO A HANDFUL BY THE 1980-90'S?

THE PURPOSE OF THIS COLLECTION OF FACTS, WRITINGS AND EXAMPLES OF SAINTS IS TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWSWER THIS QUESTION.

A brief history of what happened in the 1927 schism of Metropolitan Sergius and his followers by Metropolitan Vitaly  and Metropolitan Philaret:

Metropolitan Vitaly wrote:

     "From the very earliest years the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has had no communion at all with the Moscow Patriarchate for very good reasons. Let us recall how, in a document dated 25th December 1924, Patriarch Tikhon appointed one of three Metropolitans - whichever of Metropolitans Kyrill, Agathangel or Peter of Krutitsa could manage to be present in Moscow - to replace him after his death until such time as a new Patriarch could be elected. Metropolitans Kyrill and Agathangel were not allowed to travel to Moscow from their places of exile by the Soviet government. The 58 bishops who assembled in Moscow for the funeral of Patriarch Tikhon examined the document left by the late Patriarch, and then recognized Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa as locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne until the lawful election of a new Patriarch. He was loyal to the Soviet government in the sense that he did not speak out against it publicly, but he completely refused to make any untrue statements in support of it or to meet any of its demands which were unacceptable to the Church. On 27th November / 10th December 1925 he was arrested. At first he was imprisoned in the Butyrka Prison, in a large cell together with common criminals, and then he was exiled to a remote part of Asia. A few days before his arrest Metropolitan Peter appointed Metropolitan Sergius, who was then in Moscow, as his deputy, and indicated two other possible deputies - Metropolitan Michael, the Exarch of the Ukraine, and Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, who was then still Archbishop of Rostov.
    At first Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky did not sign the "Declaration" and was put in prison, but he was let out very soon after. This seemed highly suspicious to all the faithful. It turned out that now he had signed the Declaration. In other words, he had betrayed the Church to the Bolshevik government. He thereby deprived it of its own internal freedom in spiritual and administrative matters. When Metropolitan Peter learned that Metropolitan Sergius had signed this Declaration - in other words, that he had changed the whole course of the life of the Church - he wrote him two letters from prison, copies of which have been preserved. In these letters he said, very politely, "You, your eminence, had no right to change the course of the Church" i.e. to betray it to the Bolsheviks. He received no answer to these letters. And he was the real authority over Metropolitan Sergius. Clearly Sergius had concluded that by being arrested Metropolitan Peter had also been deposed from his position of authority in the Church, which is completely contrary to the Orthodox canons. Then Metropolitan Peter sent a letter by hand, thinking that it was the postal service that was at fault, and even then Metropolitan Sergius made no reply to his ecclesiastical superior, who was still his superior, even though confined to prison! For no Bolshevik government authority can deprive a single bishop or a single priest of his spiritual authority.
    This is something which you should know. Despite this, Sergius decided that he need no longer reckon with him as someone in a senior position. When Metropolitan Peter returned from his exile, the Bolsheviks realized that Metropolitan Peter was senior to Metropolitan Sergius in the Church, and then they immediately arrested him and shot him. None of the ruling bishops (and there were about ten of them) submitted to Metropolitan Sergius as the successor to the Patriarch. So they were all arrested, sent into exile, and ultimately killed. The Bolsheviks did everything possible to smooth the way for Metropolitan Sergius. Thus Metropolitan Sergius set out on a path drenched in the blood of the martyred bishops of Russia. On one occasion Lenin said, "If you need a Church, we will give you one, we will even give you a Patriarch, but it is WE who will give you your Patriarch. And it is WE who will give you your Church."...At the moment when Metropolitan Sergius ceased to recognize Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa as his spiritual authority he deprived himself of the Apostolic Succession and became a usurper. Such was the path taken by Metropolitan Sergius, and after him by all the other patriarchs and metropolitans up to the present day, which is why we do not have any communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. It is a pseudo-patriarchate with a pseudo-patriarch at its head. This is the fundamental reason. So we do not point at it and say there, look what it's turned into, because the very heart of the matter is, that the Moscow Patriarchate has lost the Apostolic Succession, which is to say, that it has lost the Grace of Christ."

Metropolitan Philaret wrote:

     "What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true Church, having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or into the concentration camps. This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the Communists and all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till this day and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-Russian Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority. And a terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, by his infamous and apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense was fulfilled the _expression in the prayer at the beginning of Confession: having fallen under their own anathema! For in 1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism, while in 1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began to laud the red, God-hating regime to laud the red beast spoken of in the Apocalypse. As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated themselves from the Soviet church, and thus the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has anathematized the official church for its betrayal of Christ." 

And now to examine the question at hand

 "All those arrested for ecclesiastical matters (and such, according to official secret statistics, in 1928-29 on Solovki were as many as 20 per cent) at interrogations were invariably asked what their attitude was to "our" Metr. Sergius, who headed the "Soviet Church." At the same time the exultant GPU-interrogators with malignant joy and sarcasm would demonstrate the "strict canonicity" of Metr. Sergius and his Declaration, which "violated neither canons nor dogmas."

-Professor and Confessor Ivan Andreev-

"...the Soviet Church attained it's present ascendancy and 'canonicity' in the USSR through the government's arrest and murder of the leading anti-sergianists."

-Fr. Seraphim Rose-

1) WHAT IS SERGIANISM?

    Perhaps the best answer can be found in the Josephite (a particular group of Catacomb Christians who belonged to the true Russian Orthodox Catacomb Church) anathema against it from the late 1920's:

    “To those holding fast to the most-insane renovationist heresy of the sergianists: to those who teach that the earthly establishment of the Church of God is maintained by rejecting the truths of Christ; and to those who declare that the Church of Christ is saved by serving the theomachic authorities and carrying out their godless commands, even unto the trampling down of the sacred canons, the traditions of the Holy Fathers and the divine dogmas, and to the destruction of all Christianity; and to those who revere the antichrist and his servants, and his forerunners, and all his minions, as a legitmate authority and one established by God; and to all the leaders of that antichristian heresy, those who revile the Confessors and New Martyrs (to Sergei of Nizhegorod, to Nikolai of Kiev and to Aleksy of Khutyn), and to those who would repeat their doctrines, and to the renovationists, and to other heretics, — anathema”.

 2) HOW DID THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH VIEW SERGIANISM?

    Even before the 1927 declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, the Russian Orthodox Church declared that their could be no union between an Orthodox Christian and the communists.  Patriarch Tikhon anathamatized the communists:

   A) Patriarch Tikhon stated in 1918: 

     “I adjure all of you who are faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ not to commune with such outcasts of the human race in any matter whatsoever; ‘cast out the wicked from among you’ (I Corinthians 5.13).”

   B) And the entire Council of the Russian Orthodox Church proclamined in 1918:

     “The Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia in his epistle to the beloved in the Lord archpastors, pastors and all faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ has drawn the spiritual sword against the outcasts of the human race – the Bolsheviks, and anathematised them. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church adjures all her faithful children not to enter into any communion with these outcasts. For their satanic deeds they are cursed in this life and in the life to come. Orthodox! His Holiness the Patriarch has been given the right to bind and to loose according to the word of the Saviour… Do not destroy your souls, cease communion with the servants of Satan – the Bolsheviks. Parents, if your children are Bolsheviks, demand authoritatively that they renounce their errors, that they bring forth repentance for their eternal sin, and if they do not obey you, renounce them. Wives, if your husbands are Bolsheviks and stubbornly continue to serve Satan, leave your husbands, save yourselves and your children from the soul-destroying infection. An Orthodox Christian cannot have communion with the servants of the devil… Repent, and with burning prayer call for help from the Lord of Hosts and thrust away from yourselves ‘the hand of strangers’ – the age-old enemies of the Christian faith, who have declared themselves in self-appointed fashion ‘the people’s power’… If you do not obey the Church, you will not be her sons, but participants in the cruel and satanic deeds wrought by the open and secret enemies of Christian truth… Dare! Do not delay! Do not destroy your soul and hand it over to the devil and his stooges.”

3) DID ST. TIKHON AND OTHER SAINTS MAKE COMPROMISES WITH THE COMMUNISTS IN THE 1920'S?

    Yes...some Saints made compromises with the communists.  However they did not surrender the spiritual freedom of the Church to the communists.  They did not preach communism or heresy. They did not betray their fellow Christians to death. They were obedient to God and not to the antichristian authority which was in obedience to the devil.  They did not praise God's enemies.  They did not (with some exceptions-which were for less than 1 year in time and were done unwillingly) pray for the God hating authorities.  They did not become agents of the communists.  They did not persecute the Church.  They did not inform on other Christians.  All this was the role of the Sergianists.

4) WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ACCEPT THE DECLARATION OF METROPOLITAN SERGIUS AND HIS AND HIS FOLLOWERS SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES?

    Here are some examples:

    A) Father Palladius related how the Soviet authorities had brought the priests to submit to Metropolitan Sergius. That was in 1927/28 in Kiev:

    "They collected about two hundred of us clergy on the third floor of a building in Kiev, evidently occupied by the GPU. They declared to us that we were all obliged to sign the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), to whom the Soviet authorities had entrusted the government of the Orthodox Church in the U.S.S.R. This was the so-called 'signature of loyalty'. Whoever signed the required obligation would be received into the clergy by the 'bishop' and appointed a place where he was to serve. But whoever refused to do this would be looked upon by the Soviet authorities as having, by this refusal, committed an act of counter-revolution. And with such people, as with 'enemies of the people', they said, we can deal severely... "And then they began to call us up according to a list... But they positioned us in such a way that we were well able to see both the table to which they called us up individually and the window, close by the table, and what was happening beyond the window, below, in the inner courtyard of this building. "When they began to call out the names, no one faltered and not one gave his signature. One after the other they went up to the table and replied with a refusal. And immediately they threw the man who had refused through the window onto the concrete square. Some of these courageous martyrs for Christ, on falling from the third floor, were immediately killed and did not move. When others hit the concrete, their eyes fell out, but they continued to move... And immediately they picked each of them up and hurled them into a lorry... Seventeen clergy were thrown in in this manner. The queue now came to me - I was the fourth after these seventeen. "I was in such joy, it is impossible to describe it," he continued. "Fervently I thanked the Lord: 'Glory to Thee, O Lord, Who hast counted me worthy to receive a martyr's death!...' But alas! at that moment, a chekist came in and gave the order to wait a little with the refusers... Apparently, they understood that with this method of punishment they would be able neither to shake nor to terrify any of the confessors of the Faith of Christ. And after seventeen had been thrown through the window, they stopped hurling down those who refused to submit to Metropolitan Sergius, and began to give them terms of imprisonment in camps from five to ten years. They gave me eight years' imprisonment in camps... At the end of this term, they gave me three years more in exile in Kirghizia..."

    B) From the life of St. Valentine: 

    The priest who served in their church was called Fr. Valentine. His father and grandfather had been priests before him. In 1927 Metropolitan Sergius issued his "Declaration". Fr. Valentine signed it. When the chanters in the church heard about this, one of them - a bass, the cousin of Archippus Kuzmich - stood up and declared that the priest had renounced God. Soon the authorities again brought Fr. Valentine papers to sign. But he tore them up - both the new ones and the ones he had signed earlier. After this they took him away and no-one saw him alive again. In Fr. Valentine's place they sent a renovationist priest to the church and the church began to be considered red.

    C) Ivan Andreev writes:

    "Citizens of Soviet Russia who formerly used to go to church and then stopped going were sometimes summoned to the M.G.B. (former G.P.U.) and asked why they had given up going to church. They were forced to choose between going to the official church again or writing and publishing in a Soviet paper a complete repudiation of all religion as an "opiate of the people." Thus, going to a Soviet church was tantamount to renouncing Christ and to the total rejection of religion....All secret priests detected in the Soviet Zone of Germany have been shot. All priests who did not recognize Patriarch Alexis were also shot."

     "My conversation with Archbp. Anthony lasted more than two hours. I related to him in detail of the historic Delegation of the Petrograd diocese in 1927, after which the church schism occurred. At the end of my account Archbp. Anthony asked me to tell him of the person and activity of Vladika Maxim. I replied very reservedly and briefly, and he noticed that I did not fully trust him. He asked me about this. I frankly replied that we of the catacombs feared not only the agents of the GPU, but also the "Sergianists," who many times had given us over to the GPU."  

       D) St. Johanna, Scema Abbess of Suzdal writes:

    "My parents were persecuted and oppressed for being true to Holy Orthodoxy," reminisced Mother Joanna. The godless authorities made her father, Athanasius Sanin, choose between recognising Metropolitan Sergius' 'declaration of apostasy', or face punishment. Athanasius Sanin, a man of great Christian conscience and human dignity, chose to go to prison rather than betray his Church. He died in prison years later after suffering bestial tortures. Mother Joanna's mother, Anastasia, spent a quarter of a century in Soviet jails, but emerged unbroken.

    E) From the life of St. Vladimir:

    Archpriest Vladimir Zacharievich was the rector of the church in the town of Borovika (according to another account, Brovikhi) in the provinceof Kiev. In 1927 he was arrested and placed in solitary confinement in the Kornilov region; during interrogations they constantly demanded recognition of Metropolitan Sergius; when he categorically refused, his hands and feet were broken and he was thrown back into his prison cell overflowing with arrested people, where he died His Matushka Susanna was not given his body, and it was buried in the local cemetery in a common pit with all those who had been shot.

    F)Another story:

    A large group of priests was rounded up by the chekists in Kiev, in a house by the Dnieper. And it was proposed to them that they recognise Metropolitan Sergius as the head of that "church" which recognised the God-fighting, antichristian State. A chekist gave a short speech, but his accent showed that he was not Russian: "Whoever does not do this and recognise Metropolitan Sergius and does not submit to him is an enemy of the people and of the Soviet State. For such as these our speech will be short. Everything has already been prepared!" When he had said this, he pointed with his hand to a platform planked on the sides and with a roof on top leading own to the waters of the Dnieper. After this he began to call out each priest in turn and put to him the question: "Do you recognise Metropolitan Sergius, who is recognised by the Soviet authorities, as head of the Russian Orthodox Church? Will you sign that you are obliged to obey the metropolitan?" Whoever replied with a refusal had his hands tied behind his back and was led away onto the covered footbridge. After some time a courageous martyr of Christ appeared on the open platform. "And we saw," recounted one of the priests, "how the chekists, going into the water behind him, pushed him down, and he did not appear above the water again." All those who were faithful to Christ God and refused to betray Him and sign were thrown into the water and drowned, leaving only the fainthearted, who signed. It was one of those who told the story. He wept, bowing his head low. Then he said goodbye and left.

    G) From the lives of Sts. Nicholas and Valentina:

    Protopriest Nicholas Dzhozovsky served as the rector of the church in the town of Datsk, in the province of Kiev. In 1933 the sergianists seized this parish. Fr. Nicholas moved to the suburbs of Kiev, where his wife, Matushka Valentina, lived. In 1934 he was arrested for not recognising Metropolitan Sergius, and taken on foot through the forest to Boyarka station, from where he was to go to Vasilkov. On the road, in the forest,he was tied to a tree, mocked and brutally tortured: the tormentors cut off his fingers, tore out his hair, stabbed, cut, and finally shot him Matushka Valentina died from hunger.

    H) From the life of St. Sergius:

     "For not recognizing 'our', as the chekist-interrogators called him, Metropolitan Sergius, Bishop Sergius of Buzuluk was arrested together with an igumen whose name has been forgotten. Stirred by the unshakeable firmness of the confessors, they sentenced them to the same cruel punishment: either they would give in or suffer a terrible slow death... They put them into a room full of rats. In this room there was a pool full of water instead of a floor and a large stump of wood capable of supporting several swimming people. And in the walls of the room there were holes in which sat hungry rats ready to fall on the people as on food offered them. No one endured a stay in that room. Everyone, at the sight of those innumerable beasts of prey falling on them incessantly, immediately agreed to take upon themselves any accusation, any demand asked of them by the 'investigators'. Only so long as they were delivered from the rats, from that terrible death. And the executioners, sitting the bishop and the igumen in that rat-room, were convinced that they would obtain their desired result... But the desired result was not obtained!.. The feeding-trough was opened, and through the metal window came the voice: "'Well, have you changed your minds?' asked the supervisor. "But no answer came. "'Well, we haven't got all day! It's late...' "But the confessors of Christ understood that here there awaited them inevitable death, and they turned to God with flaming, tearful prayer. About one thing only: that they might be strengthened to receive the longed-for death for Christ... While they stood the beasts of prey were not able to overpower them. But, tormented by hunger and thirst, they grew weaker and lay dawn. And then the whole mass of rats around the water hurled themselves upon them. The supervisor saw all this and waited for them to begin to entreat him to save them, but in vain. The holy martyrs preferred death, 'the sweet death for Christ', rather than betray Him and recognize Metropolitan Sergius' treachery to be 'a good deed'. They did not ask for mercy from the torturers, and, strengthened by the grace of God, they were eaten alive by the beasts of prey..."

    I) From the life of St. Nectarius:

    The future Archimandrite Nectarius was twice arrested and condemned to the concentration camps. At preliminary interrogations on both occasions, in 1931 and 1935, the crafty questions were put to him: "Do you agree with the world-view of the Soviet authorities?", "Do you agree with the measures undertaken by the Soviet authorities in relation to collectivization?" and a whole range of similar questions. And then there followed such questions as: "Do you recognize the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, and if not, why? Why do you not recognize the lawful-canonical ecclesiastical power of Metropolitan Sergius? That means that you do not need the Church, you need those who do politics (indicating the names of those hierarchs who did not submit to Metropolitan Sergius). You are a counter-revolutionary, an enemy of Soviet power," etc.  

     J) From the life of Hieroconfessor St. Basil, Bishop Of Kineshma

    The hierarch refused to sign the declaration of Metropolitan Sergiusand recognize it as Orthodox. At that the enraged torturers set about beating him with the buckles of their soldier's belts. But they could not shake his resolute, pure and Orthodox confession of Christ, which could not be deflected by any worldly enticement.

    K) Archbishop Lazarus writes:

    And for merely not recognizing Patriarch Alexis, priests were given 25 years' imprisonment and laymen were given 10 years.

    L) Gideon, Peter, Nicetas And Tiburtius ,Hieromartyrs And Those With Them

    In 1931, Hieromonk Gideon and the priest Peter were the only two priests in their deanery who refused to sign the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius. After the meeting, the Bolsheviks came to take him at the house of his mother. His mother remembered his parting words for the rest of her life: "Don't go anywhere, don't look for anyone! They've all signed! Fr. Peter and I were the only ones at the meeting of the clergy who did not put their signatures to the dishonourable document of apostasy. And now we await speedy arrest, imprisonment and execution by shooting!" And a few days later, on Thomas Sunday, Fr. Gideon was taken away and shot. Fr. Peter was taken a little later, but in the same year.

5) HAVE THEIR BEEN ANY REVELATIONS FROM GOD ABOUT THE SERGIANIST PATH?

    Yes.  Here are a few:

    A) From the life of St. Hilarion, Bishop And Hieromartyr Of Porech

    On October 1,1929, under pressure from the sergianist bishops, he served in the cemetery church, commemorating the name of Metropolitan Sergius. What happened next was described by Hieromartyr Nectarius, Bishop of Yaransk, his fellow-prisoner on Solovki, who heard it from Vladyka Hilarion himself: "Shortly before this [service in the cemetery church], he had a very frightening dream. It was as if he trampled the Smolensk Hodigitria icon of the Mother of God under foot. And what then? After serving the liturgy with the sergianist bishops, instead of receiving spiritual consolation and joy, he began to feel terrible pangs of conscience and depression of spirit, 'and the sergianist apostasy,' he told me, 'became quite clear to me - I had turned out to be a participator in the sergianist crimes against the Orthodox Church.' And what then? At that very moment he declared to the sergianist bishops that he was leaving them and returning to his former ecclesiastical position with Bishops Victor, Nectarius, Demetrius and the others."

    B) From the life of St. Sergius:

    After the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, many people were unsure: should they go into this "church" or not? Some would say: "Of course we must enter!" Others: "In no circumstances must we enter!" One Kievan abbess was at a loss what to do. And she prayed fervently to the Lord to enlighten her. And it was revealed to her where she would obtain correct guidance. For this she was shown in detail where she had to go and was given the name of the sick Sergius... The abbess entrusted two faithful nuns with the task of going to this servant of God. They set off on the journey of some hundreds of kilometres on foot, as had been indicated to them, and they arrived without encountering any special obstacle. Brother Sergius already knew that they were coming to him from a long way away, and was waiting for them. When they entered his house he was the first to begin speaking: "Tell Matushka Abbess: it is absolutely forbidden to go to this 'church'. Let her not to doubt or waver any more. There, in that 'church', is a terrible, horrific heresy. All the priests there have signed, have agreed and entered into complete obedience to the antichrist... Now we must live as in the last times. We can turn only to those priests who have not signed allegiance to the antagonist of Christ. But there are very few of them and they are persecuting and killing them. They will teach you what to do and how to act..."

    C) The claivoyant Eldress St. Agatha of BelaRussia to whom the Mother of God appeared many times said:

     "This is not a true church. It has signed a contract to serve antichrist. Do not go to it. Do not receive any Mysteries from its servants. Do not participate in prayer with them. There will come a time when churches will be opened in Russia, and the true Orthodox faith will triumph. Then people will become baptized, as at one time they were baptized under St. Vladimir. When the churches are opened for the first time, do not go to them because these will not be true churches; but when they are opened the second time, then go - these will be the true churches."

6) ARE THERE ANY OTHER INTERESTING STORIES ABOUT THIS ISSUE?

    Yes...here are some:

    A) From the life of St. Nicetas:

    Once at Pascha Fr. Nicetas was serving in a narrow little store-room, half of which was curtained off. During the Paschal service the priest has to change his vestments, and Fr. Nicetas couldn't do this without an assistant. He remembered a service in a big Moscow church where the choir alone numbered 70 chanters, - all the circumstances of his long and much-suffering life appeared in a flash before his mental gaze, - and Batyushka fell onto the altar and wept - as an eye-witness remembers - like a child.  But Batyushka was immediately consoled, for the Saviour appeared to him at that moment and strengthened him. He ordered that this incident should not be related to others until after his death.

    B) A story from the 1980's:

    In the early 1980s a small secret community of monastics was discovered in the high mountains about 60 kilometres from Sukhumi by the KGB. 18 monastics managed to take shelter in a cave. The pursuers in a helicopter threw a cask full of burning liquid into the entrance and set it on fire.All those hiding in the cave perished. Their names were: Irina, Maria, Eudocia, Ulyana, John, Gregory, Basil, Andrew, Stephen, and others.

    C) From the life of St. Arsenius:

    "By the way, the bishops who fell into schism usually played a terrible role of agent provocateur for the GPU. In the GPU prison, the renovationist Metropolitan Eudocimus (Meshchersky) tried to force Metropolitan Arsenius of Novgorod to join renovationism. Metropolitan Arsenius told him, his former colleague in the Moscow Academy: "'But you must know that renovationism is unlawful.' "'What can one do - they demand it,' replied Archbishop Eudocimus, motioning with his head to the chekist's door. "When Metropolitan Arsenius remained unbending, Archbishop Eudocimus angrily said to him: "'Well then rot in prison!..' "And with this he left the prisoner."

    D) From the life of St. Hieromartyr Arcadius, Bishop Of Lubny

    Once, when his strength was undermined from this constant loneliness, homelessness and fear of the next day, being secretly in Moscow, he was tempted to visit Metropolitan Sergius. In order to see the metropolitan, one had to go through great difficulties and dangers. And when he finally saw him and told him about his situation, the metropolitan, without listening to him, asked abruptly: "Have you registered with the GPU? Until you are registered there, I will not speak with you." As Vladyka Arcadius was leaving the metropolitan's office, he noted that both the metropolitan and all his clergy were well fed and wore clean clothing. And when he looked around at the miserable, destitute people who were waiting outside his office in the hope of seeing the metropolitan and receiving some help from him, he understood that his path was different, and that he had to return to his wandering...

    E)   Nicetas (Lekhan) Hieroconfessor Of Kharkov:

    In this village there lived some True Orthodox nuns, who had come there from various closed monasteries. They told him about sergianism, the way in which the official Russian Church under Metropolitan Sergius had surrendered to the communists. But he was young then and did not listen to them particularly. But then, as he himself related, the Lord sent him a penance for his service in the "sergianist church": he was arrested. Throughout his years in prison he considered it a punishment, and not an exploit. He thought the sam with regard to those convinced sergianist bishops and priests who were arrested in spite of their agreement with the atheists.

7)HAVE ANY CHURCH COUNCILS EVER RULED ON THE ISSUE OF SERGIANISM OR THE SEGIANIST CHURCH?

    Yes...to mention two of them:

The Catacomb Council of Ust-Kut (1935):

     Divine Providence convened a Council of the Catacomb Church in July, 1937, in the depths of Siberia:- “In the last days of July, 1937, in the Siberian town of Ust-Kut, on the River Lena (at its juncture with the River Kut), in the re-grouping section of the house of arrest, there met by chance: two Metropolitans, four Bishops, two Priests and six laymen of the secret Catacomb Church, who were on a stage of their journey from Vitim to Irkutsk, being sent from Irkutsk to the north.
    “It was difficult to anticipate a similarly full and representative gathering of same-minded members of the Church in the near future. Therefore those who had gathered decided immediately to open a ‘Sacred Council’, in order to make canonical regulations concerning vital questions of the Catacomb Church. The time of the Council was, as it seemed, limited to four hours, after which the participants in the Council were sent in different directions.
    “The president was Metropolitan John (in one version: “Bishop John”), and the Council chose the layman A.Z. to be secretary. The resolutions of the Council were not signed: A.Z. gave an oath to memorize the decisions of the Council and to pass on to whom it was necessary whatever he remembered exactly, but not to speak at all about what he confused or could not remember exactly. A.Z. in his time succeeded in passing on the memorised decisions of the Church. His words were written down and became Canons of the Church. Among these Canons were some which are especially necessary for the Church:
    “1. The Sacred Council forbids the faithful to receive communion from the clergy legalized by the anti-Christian State.
    “2. It has been revealed to the Sacred Council by the Spirit that the anathema-curse hurled by his Holiness Patriarch Tikhon is valid, and all priests and Church-servers who have dared to consider it as an ecclesiastical mistake or political tactic are placed under its power and bound by it.“
    3. To all those who discredit and separate themselves from the Sacred Council of 1917-18 – Anathema!“
    4. All branches of the Church which are on the common trunk – the trunk is our pre-revolutionary Church – are living branches of the Church of Christ. We give our blessing to common prayer and the serving of the Divine Liturgy to all priests of these branches. The Sacred Council forbids all those who do not consider themselves to be branches, but independent from the tree of the Church, to serve the Divine Liturgy. The Sacred Council does not consider it necessary to have administrative unity of the branches of the Church, but unity of mind concerning the Church is binding on all.” 

The ROCOR Council of 1971:

     Resolution of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Concerning the Election of Pimen (Isvekov as Patriarch of Moscow)

The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on September 1/14) 1971 considered the gathering which, calling itself an All-Russian Church Council, met in Moscow from May 30 to June 2 of this year for the purpose of electing a Patriarch of Moscow and all Russias. This gathering declared that Metropolitan Pimen was elected to the Patriarchal Throne. After considering all aspects of this election, the Council of Bishops, representing the free part of the Russian Orthodox Church, came to the following conclusion:

I. For the election of the Primate of a Local Church it is essential that such an election take place according to the laws of the given Church and that it be free, representing a genuine _expression of her voice.

2. In 1917 the All-Russian Council adopted a resolution restoring the Patriarchate in Russia, and elected to the Patriarchal See His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. This council included all canonically consecrated bishops of the Russian Church, representatives of the monastic clergy and the Orthodox Theological Academies, invited by the Synod on the basis of the Regulation it had issued. All the representatives of the diocese were chosen freely at elections on three levels: parish elections, deanery elections and diocesan meetings. The actual election of the Patriarch took place in a fashion that guaranteed freedom in the nominating of candidates for election. The latter were established by a secret ballot, and at first a large number of candidates were named. From among them, by systematic balloting, the three who received the highest number of votes were picked, and of those one was finally elected by the drawing of lots. This system of election, guaranteeing complete freedom and confirmed by the All-Russian Church Council, was never abolished by a free council of equal authority. Therefore, and election of Patriarchs effected otherwise and not in a free manner, does not express the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church and is not lawful. Not only the election of the present Pimen, who claims to be Patriarch, but those of his two predecessors must also be regarded as unlawful. Their supporters can not defend these elections by saying that the external conditions caused by persecutions against the Faith prevented the realization of a lawful form of election, since, despite the obvious, they constantly insist on the supposed full religion's freedom in the Soviet Union. Similar decisions were made the now elected Patriarch Pimen. At all three patriarchal elections, no one attempted or had any possibility of nominating a candidate other than the one indicated beforehand by representatives of the secular authorities.

3. The lawful succession of higher Church authority in the Russian Church has been broken since 192 7, when the Acting Locum-Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny-Novgorod, went against the order of the Metropolitan of Krutitsa whom he was replacing and signed an agreement with the atheistic secular authorities, to which neither Metropolitan Peter nor the other elder hierarchs agreed. The Soviet government began to throw all the hierarchs who did not agree with Metropolitan Sergius in prison, thus clearing the path for him to become head of the Russian Church.
He, for his part, taking no account of the elder bishops, formed a Synod by his own personal choice and, while Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, to whom by position the Moscow diocese belonged, was still alive, he unlawfully gave himself the title of "His Beatitude the Metropolitan of Moscow" with the right to wear two panagias. In 1943, by order of the atheist and the malicious persecutor of the Church, Stalin, he hurriedly (in four days) pulled together, in fulfillment of the latter's political plans, a Council consisting of bishops specially chosen and freed from prison for the purpose by Stalin, a Council which, counting Metropolitan Sergius, himself, consisted of only 19 bishops, and which elected him Patriarch. In 1945, after the death of Patriarch Sergius, Metropolitan Alexis of Leningrad gathered a Council, to which representatives of the other autocephalous Churches were also invited. This Council, besides recently consecrated bishops, consisted of representatives of the clergy and laity, picked without elections and prepared for the election of a Patriarch, and, submissively following the directions of the atheistic authorities, unanimously elected as Patriarch Metropolitan Alexis of Leningrad. After his death, in the same illegal manner the so-called All-Russian Council was convoked this year for the election as Patriarch of Metropolitan Pimen, known not so much for his devoutness or theological education, but rather for his diligence in carrying out the orders of the atheistic government, which are directed toward the destruction of the Church and toward fulfilling the political plans of the Soviet Regime.

4. All of the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943, are invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to which, "if any bishop, having made use of secular rulers, should receive through them Episcopal authority in the Church, let him be defrocked and excommunicated along with all those in communion with him". The significance that the Fathers of the 7th Council gave to such an offence is obvious from the very fact of a double punishment for it, that is, not only deposition but excommunication as well, something unusual for ecclesiastical law. The famous commentator on Canon Law, Bishop Nicodemus of Dalmatia, gives the following explanation of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles: "If the Church condemned unlawful influence by the secular authorities in the ordination of bishops at a time when the rulers were Christians, then it follows that She should condemn such action all the more when the latter are pagans and place even heavier penalties on the guilty parties, who were not ashamed of asking for help from pagan rulers and the authorities subordinated to them, in order to gain the episcopate. This (30th) Canon has such cases in view". If in defense of this position examples are given of the Patriarchs of Constantinople who were placed on the Throne at the caprice of the Turkish Sultans, one can reply that no anomaly can be regarded as a norm and that one breach of Canon Law cannot justify another.

Taking into consideration all the above mentioned reasons, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as the representative of the free part of the Russian Church, determines:

The election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russias at the gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church Council in Moscow the 2nd of June of this year, on the authority of the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council and other reasons set forth in this decision, is to be regarded as unlawful and void, and all of his acts and directions as having no strength. 

8) WHAT ARE THE OPINIONS OF VARIOUS RUSSIAN NEW MARTYRS CONCERNING SERGIANISM OR THE SERGIANIST CHURCH ORGANIZATION?

    A) Abercius, Archbishop And Hieromartyr Of Zhitomir:

     When Metropolitan Sergius' declaration appeared in 1927, Archbishop Abercius came out strongly against it. Together with his brother, Archbishop Pachomius, he wrote an epistle in which he said: "There can be no union between Church and State, when it has to do with our Orthodox Church and the Soviet Union, by reason of the fundamental difference in the basic views of the two sides. The only thing that is possible is a conditional agreement as to practical mutual relationships, solely on the foundation of the principle of the separation of Church and State. "In actual fact, can one even conceive of the Soviet State in union with the Church? A State religion in an anti-religious State! A government Church in an atheist government! This is an absurdity; it contradicts the nature of the Church and the Soviet State; this is unacceptable both for a sincerely religious person and for an honest atheist."

    B)  Hieroconfessor Agathangelus, Metropolitan Of Yaroslavl:

    Towards the end of 1927 he wrote a letter to Bishop Paul of Starobela, calling Sergius "a usurper of ecclesiastical power". And he formed the so-called "Yaroslavl group", which declared its break of communion with Metropolitan Sergius on January 24 / February 6, 1928. Although in May of that year, probably under the influence of Tuchkov, who arrived in Yaroslavl at that time, he displayed some wavering in his attitude towards Sergius,his group remained as a de facto autocephaly until his death, reserving the right not to carry out any instructions that "offended our and the people's conscience and, as we believe, transgress the church canons". Moreover, there is evidence that Metropolitan Agathangelus broke communion with Sergius again that summer. In September, 1928 he wrote a sharp Epistle against Metropolitan Sergius. According to Schema-Bishop Peter, Metropolitan Agathangelus advised him that if Metropolitans Agathangelus, Cyril, Peter and Joseph should die, he should turn to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), president of the Russian Church Abroad, who was an opponent of Metropolitan Sergius. And when Metropolitan Sergius wrote to him requesting him not to break communion with him and join the ranks of the Catacomb Church, Metropolitan Agathangelus replied with a deafening silence. That Vladyka Agathangelus was never reconciled with Metropolitan Sergius is affirmed by his niece, A. V. Preobrazhenskaya.

    C)  New Martyr Schema-Igumen Zosimas of the Svir desert:

     "In the course of the whole Christian era not one heresiarch has introduced such destructive opinions [as Metropolitan Sergius], which besmirch the great Christian exploit of martyrdom and confession. Not one has yet called on people and taught them to rejoice at the overthrow of everything that was achieved by the Apostolic preaching, by the sufferings of the holy martyrs and confessors What a pity that the majority of hierarchs, keeping quiet about the essence of the question, go round it, not seeing a canon directly relating to this subject, and in this way they calm their conscience. But if there is no direct canon, then there is the Holy Gospel - the foundation of all the canons."

    D)  Alexis, Bishop And Hieromartyr Of Voronezh:

     On January 9/22, 1928 Bishop Alexis wrote an epistle to the clergy and laity of the Voronezh diocese concerning his separation from Metropolitan Sergius, in which he said: "By his actions contrary to the spirit of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Sergius has torn himself away from unity with the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and lost the right to lead the Russian Church... I elect his Eminence Joseph (Petrovykh) as my highest spiritual leader..."

    E) Hieromartyr Andrew, Archbishop Of Ufa: 

    "Yes, we are all living through a fearful, terrible time, when lies and deceit rule and celebrate their triumph on the earth. The breath of the Antichrist can be felt in every corner of our life. Even Metropolitan Peter did not escape this breath of the Antichrist. But later he repented and now he is in a distant exile. As for the renovationists and Metropolitan Sergius, they have completely bowed down to that beast of which the holy book of the Revelation of John the Theologian speaks. Read the thirteenth chapter. Both the renovationists and Metropolitan Sergius are carrying out only the will of the atheists. And they do not hide this from anyone, but even write about it in their 'Declarations'. That is why every true son of the Church must flee from these betrayers of Christ without looking back; and all true children of the Church must give their parish communities foundations that are free and independent of the hierarch betrayers of Christ. There is no doubt that the hierarchs who have submitted to Metropolitan Sergius have all renounced the people of the Church and are serving the atheists and are only corrupting the believing people. That is why it is necessary to carry out the command from the Revelation of John the Theologian: 'Come out from her, My people, so that you may not participate in her sins and not be subjected to her plagues' (Revelation 18.4). It is necessary that all parish priests should be elected and not appointed. It is necessary that all priests should give their signatures to the parish councils that they will do nothing without the knowledge of the parish council. It is necessary that bishops, too, should be elected by the people for their pious life, and not drunkards or betrayers of Christ whom the renovationists have appointed." 
     When Metropolitan Sergius gave his notorious interview for TASS on February 15, 1930, in which he denied that there was persecution against religion in the USSR and equated the Church confessors with common criminals, Archbishop Andrew wrote: "Such is the opinion of the false head of the false patriarchal church Metropolitan Sergius. Who, after all this, can recognize him as their head? For whom will this false head remain as such, in spite of his betrayal of Christ? Imagine, readers - they recognize him, many recognize him!.. They curse him, but recognize him as their 'canonical' head. As if it were better to sit in hell with such a canonical head than without any head at all... But tell me, reader, is it possible to consider this company of hierarchs, these universal deceivers, as followers of Christ? - It goes without saying: no and no! All the followers of the lying Metropolitan Sergius are themselves filled to overflowing with lies and cunning and have fallen away from the truth of Christ - they have fallen away from the Church of Christ. The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is in some other place, but not with Metropolitan Sergius and not with his 'Synod'. Let the reader himself search where she is... It is not so difficult to find her. But one can firmly say that Metropolitan Sergius has convincingly demonstrated that the Synodal government of the Church did not give, and could not give her anything but harm. Sergius has dug a deep grave for this kind of Church government. The Holy Church will recall the sins of Sergius and his co-strugglers with horror, placing his name next to the names of the ecumenical false-patriarchs - Nestorius, Dioscurus and the other terrible traitors against Orthodoxy. When the hierarch Athanasius of Alexandria was expelled from his see by an heretical emperor, then, of course, hierarchs were found who readily carried out all the unlawful commands of the tsar. These hierarchs were called by St. Athanasius, not episkopoi [bishops], but kataskopoi (i.e. tsarist spies) deprived of all the gifts of grace. Such are our contemporary kataskopoi; they are destroyers of the churches of God and of Church life in general. Such is Metropolitan Sergius."

    F) Hieromartyr Barlaam, Archbishop Of Perm:

     Archbishop Barlaam was one of four bishops of the Yaroslavl diocese who sent an epistle to Metropolitan Sergius, breaking communion with him. Metropolitan Sergius reacted by issuing an ukaz on April 11, banning Archbishop Barlaam and those with him. Archbishop Barlaam, together with others, immediately issued another epistle, stating that they did not protest against Metropolitan Sergius' right of administration but against his Church policy. Among other things, they wrote: "The unwilling complicity of Orthodoxy with the socialist republic has become aggravated through the acceptance of the godless government by Metropolitan Sergius. The Church may not carry on external struggle, but the Church should devote herself to spiritual struggle with such a government."

    G)  Hieroconfessor Basil, Bishop Of Kineshma:

    "I don't recognize Sergius as Orthodox," wrote Basil to him in reply. "And I ask you not to offer me any other sees, because I am old and too worn out by exiles."

    H) Hieromartyr Basil, Bishop Of Priluky:

     "The Church cannot help but sympathize with the attempt by Metropolitan Sergius and his holy Synod to obtain a peaceful attitude from the Bolshevik persecutors of the All-Russian Orthodox Church towards her, for Christians are commanded by God: 'If it is possible on your part, be at peace with everyone' (Romans 12.18). But Christ allows the Church to accept from Metropolitan Sergius and his holy Synod only such a reconciliation with her persecutors, the Bolsheviks and their Soviet power, as will truly be the peace of Christ, that is, a peace of such a content and quality as is demanded by Christ, Who said: 'Seek first of all the Kingdom of God and His righteousness', and not earthly prosperity and security. For any other peace is undoubtedly forbidden by the Church of Christ unto all ages and eternity (John 14.27). "Unfortunately, this attempt by Metropolitan Sergius and his holy Synod not only has not given us the peace of Christ with the Bolsheviks, but so far does not give us even the hope of such a peace, and that not only because of the Bolsheviks' stubborn enmity towards the Orthodox Church, but also because the attempt by Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod was begun is being further advanced by them by uncanonical means, and consequently, not according to the path of Church righteousness. There are other defects in it from the ecclesiastical point of view, about which we shall speak at another time, if God gives us the opportunity. It is necessary immediately to move this attempt by Metropolitan Sergius and his holy Synod into the canonical stream of Church righteousness, and above all to declare to the Bolsheviks that only an All-Russian Local Orthodox Council of bishops (alone, or broadened by the participation of clergy and laity in the form of a general All-Russian Church Council) has the right to speak about politics and carry out any political activity in the name of our Church. "Forgive our baseness, fathers and brothers, sisters and children in the Lord, and pray for my sins. May the mercy of the Lord give all of us joy without ceasing, beloved. The Lord God speaks to everyone who has ears to hear: 'Be faithful to Me unto death and I will give you a crown of life. But the fearful and those who are unfaithful to Me have their lot in the lake burning with fire and brimstone' (Revelation 2.10, 21,8)."

    I)  Hieromartyr Benjamin, Bishop Of Rybinsk:

     "Metropolitan Sergius has begun an undertaking that is complex and difficult in its spiritual basis. Aiming to legitimize the civil situation of the Church in the contemporary State, the metropolitan has done something without precedent in the history of the Church - an experiment in joiningtwo mutually denying elements - the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of atheism, the Kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of antichrist. Metropolitan Sergiushas always been noted for his well-known suppleness of mind. Here he has taken this suppleness beyond its measure and become its victim. "The declaration has placed the Church in a position in relation to the contemporary State that she cannot accept while remaining the Church. Our State has openly, in front of the whole world, inscribed on its banner atheism and the struggle with religion, with Orthodoxy in particular. It is a struggle until final victory, until the complete death of religion. The Church can never say to such a government: 'I am with our government', and to the atheist people: 'I am with our people'. The Church can never say: 'the joys and successes of our civil homeland are our joys and successes, and its our failures - our failures.' Our Christian homeland under the leadershipof the God-fighting government is being systematically and swiftly reconstructed. It is already something new, its building in all branches of its life is atheist and antichristian, an atheist homeland is being formed. The joys and successes of its atheist construction cannot be the joys of the Church. The concept of the homeland is complex. It is composed of geographical, national, political, social, everyday and religious elements. Of these only one has so far remained untouched for us - the geographical. And not even that entirely. Atheism is defiling even the land. The atheist homeland is no longer a sacred homeland. For the Christian it has ceased to be the homeland. The Christian cannot call the atheistically constructed homeland his homeland, and still less can he rejoiced in its joys and successes. The joys and successes of the atheist homeland strengthen the atheism of the homeland and for that reason cannot be the joys of the Christian. "Metropolitan Sergius, by standing up next to atheism and the God-fighting government, by assuming to himself the joys and successes ofthe atheistically constructed, God-fighting homeland, has 'bowed' the Church of Christ under a foreign yoke with unbelievers. They say: it is possible to distinguish the civil element from the religious. That is either an erroror a sophism. Socialism understood in an abstract sense is a purely economic system. For that reason many think that it is possible to construct economic life without touching on religion at all. That is absurd. When the unbeliever constructs life, he will not be able to take only a part of life for his purely economic construction. He will unfailingly strive to take the whole of life for irreligious construction. The unbelieving builders are generous in their promises of complete religious freedom, that is, they are very loquacious, promising to present a certain part of life for any religion so that the whole of the rest of life may be filled with an exclusively irreligious content. But such promises are unacceptable, first, because of their very nature - their irreligiosity,.. and secondly, they will never be fulfilled by the unbelieving builders of life. "But let us imagine an atheist government that is ideally tolerant towards religion. That does little to change the situation. The Christian, like the believer of any other religion, can never be satisfied and reconciled with atheist government. "He knows that 'if the Lord builds not the house, they labour in vain that build it'. Therefore the irreligious tone of life, even if it is most tolerant of religion, is unacceptable as a matter of principle for the Christian and for a person of any other religion. "Our State is carrying out the first experiment in the world; a similar process, at a lower level, is taking place in other States - there where there is separation of the Church from the State. "The atheization of mankind is growing. Its limits are unknown. The ideological exodus for the Christian in the atheist State is a departure from the world, but there is nowhere to depart to. It is left to the Christianto sorrow and suffer, to submit to reality. He does not submits ideologically, but preserves his principles as holy objects"

     J) Hieroconfessor Paul, Bishop Of Starobela:

     "Metropolitan Sergiuss, not personally of himself, but in the name of the whole Orthodox Catholic Church, has worshipped the man-god, who speaks proudly and blasphemously Concerning the modernized church or concerning Sergian 'Orthodoxy', I, a sinner, believe that, as regards such church activists, we must call them not only heretics and schismatics, but as those who have departed from God. Metropolitan Sergius brings into the church service a heresy unheard of in the history of the Church, the heresy of modernized departure from God, - of which the natural consequence has been confusion and schism in the