Vernost' Number 26

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

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

1. "КАК ВЫЙТИ ИЗ ТУПИКА...?" ЕПИСКОП ДИОНИСИЙ, НОВГОРОДСКО-ТВЕРСКОЙ.

4. "ПЕРЕНЕСЕНИЕ МОЩЕЙ МИТРОПОЛИТА ФИЛАРЕТА ТРЕТЬЕГО ПЕРВОИЕРАРХА РПЦЗ"

5. "НАШ ВОЛНУЮЩИЙСЯ ЦЕРКОВНЫЙ АРХИПЕЛАГ". П. БОНДАРЕНКО

6. "ПОКАЯНИЕ ЗАКОНЧЕНО, ЗАБУДЬТЕ". СВЯЩ. В. ХРИСТОВЫЙ.

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

КАК ВЫЙТИ ИЗ ТУПИКА КУДА ЗАВЕЛИ ЗАРУБЕЖНУЮ ЦЕРКОВЬ КАНЦЕЛЯРИИ ЛАВРОВЦЕВ И МАНСОНВИЛЬЦЕВ?

С самого начала, после нашего присоединения к РПЦЗ в 1993 г.. мы, члены Катакомбной Церкви, последовательно защищали Зарубежную Церковь, ее идейное наследие, ее Отцов и Первоиерарха Митрополита Виталия от нападок, как патриархийных апологетов, так и экстремистов-раскольников.

После Собора 2000 года, мы в частности поддерживали духовенство Западно-Европейской епархии, выступавшее против «нового курса» и епископа Амвросия. Отцы Вениамин Жуков и Николай Семенов звонили тогда нам и искали нашей поддержки. На 1-ом Воронежском совещании российского духовенства РПЦЗ в сентябре 2001 г. мы настояли на включение в обращении пункта о поддержке «французского» духовенства нашей Церкви. В ноябре того же 2001 г. я был в Париже у о. В. Жукова на совещании их духовенства. Все было хорошо. Несогласие касалось только объединения Вл. Варнавы с Владыками Лазарем и Вениамином — на чем настаивали мы и что отвергалось о. В. Жуковым. Но сразу же после моего отъезда из Парижа в интернете началась травля нас с братом, о. Тимофеем Алферовым, приближенными о. В. Жукова.

Можно понять, что он — ныне «секретарь Синода» РПЦЗ(В) — считал себя более способным руководить церковной жизнью, чем Вл. Лазарь или кто-то еще. Но зачем устраивать публичную травлю неугодных лиц и скандал в интернете? Например, покойный Епископ Григорий (Граббе) тоже имел большую власть и возможно кого-то «отодвигал». Но он никогда не устраивал скандалов, «чисток», не разрушал той Церкви, в которой пребывал, заботился об ее авторитете.

К сожалению, прот. В. Жуков поступил прямо наоборот. Сначала устроил травлю Владык Лазаря и Вениамина, а также нас, затем прот. В. Мелехова, затем «отсек» и самого Владыку Варнаву, именем которого действовал в начале. При этом он опирался на скандальных лиц из 4-й волны эмиграции или подобных им в России.

Достаточно характерной фигурой здесь является его главный пропагандист В. Черкасов (узел «Меч и трость»), бывший редактор советского милицейского журнала «Воспитание и правопорядок», затем в перестройку ставший автором десятка дешевых бульварных романов со множеством грязных, в том числе порнографических, сцен. Этого, выдающего себя за «белогвардейца» борзописца, остроумно назвали на одном из интернетовских узлов «порногвардейцем». Его хамство и грязь однозначно выдают его, как советского пропагандиста и бульварного писателя.

Среди активистов пропагандной кампании против нас, используемых прот. В. Жуковым, видимо не случайно, оказались и бывший совхозный парторг и бывшая журналистка одной из центральных советских газет — «Комсомольской Правды», и выпускник советской «мореходки», где строго смотрели за теми, кого выпускали в заграничное плавание. Эти люди умело, профессионально, собирали компромат на «лазаревский раскол», не гнушались использовать чужие письма и частные доверительные разговоры, «подшивали к делу» случайные слова, и потом с подлинно советским пафосом, с раскатами «благородного негодования» клеймили и громили «врагов истинной Церкви», требуя от имени «трудяшихся» новых чисток. Так поступили они и с Вл. Варнавой и с о. Германом Ивановым-Тринадцатым — коренными «зарубежниками».

По этим методам борьбы, по тем людям, на которых он опирался — и по тем результатам, к которым он пришел, можно увидеть, что дело прот. В. Жукова было неправым делом, развалом Зарубежной Церкви, дискредитацией противников «нового курса» на унию с МП, копрометацией самого Митрополита Виталия, именем которого все прикрывалось.

Более того, это было разрушением соборности, подменой очного, гласного и честного рабирательства спорных вопросов — закулисными интригами и шельмованием в интернете своих соперников, часто мнимых. Интернет-трибуналы бывших советских пропагандистов заменили и церковный суд, и архиерейский собор, превратили в ничто авторитет архиерейского сана. Атмосфера братского единства была заменена атмосферой подозрительности и ненависти темных советских времен.

Хотя бы, как трезвый политик, о. В. Жуков должен был бы понимать, что тот, кто опирается исключительно на маргинальные элементы, имеет очень узкую базу поддержки. Всякий цезарь, опиравшийся на одних преторианцев, бывал в свою очередь свергнут ими. Люди, бесстыдно поносившие «лазаревцев» и «варнавинцев», потеряли совесть и способны на все. К ним точно приложимы слова проф. И. А. Ильина («Аксиомы религиозного опыта», гл. 14):

«Такова религиозно-разрушительная природа болезненной подозрительности и безпредметного злоязычия, Здесь пошлость возникает из потребности видеть зло в людях и принимать его за существенное. Его человеконенавистничество вырастает из слепоты к Божественному или из особого «мраковидения». Он смотрит из зла и видет зло; и приучается не видеть кроме зла — ничего. Развивается страсть все совлекать, принижать и компрометировать, — иногда только в теории, но иногда и на практике, человек успокаивается только тогда, когда ему удастся извлечь низость из чужой души, или развернуть свою собственную низость с доказательной силой. Это становится для него неутолимой потребностью, победой, наслаждением. Уязвленный своей низостью, он жаждет унизить и других. И мстит — и себе, и другим — за свое собственное мраковидение и человеконенавистничество; радуется бытию ничтожного и предается его детальному созерцанию; и ожесточается в этом разложении человека на атомы низости, злобы и обиды («подполье» Достоевского!). В основе этого — акт религиозно неверной направленности, отвернувшейся от священного и сосредоточившейся на ничтожном — из нее возникает ошибочное стремление не возвысить свою низину, очистив ее Божьими лучами, а унизить весь мир до собственной низины. Подпольный человек обижен собственной малостью, роется в ней и мстит за нее — другим и себе… Здесь подпольный человек идет по путям демонизма. Он не выносит идею ранга… Он одержим чувством своего ничтожества и не прощает его ни себе, ни другим людям. Он одержим завистью ко всем, кто выше его, и не прощает этого никому. Вот почему «подполье» есть одно из самых законченных и трудно-целимых явлений пошлости — источник злопыхательства, бесчисленных преступлений, отчаянных кощунств и профессиональной революционности».

Заметим, что «подпольное» состояние души является одним из наиболее тяжелых и распространенных последствий советчины, без учета которого многие явления в постсоветской России непонятны.

К сожалению, в рядах «мансонвильцев», особенно среди их пропагандистов, скопилось немало людей этого типа. Они превращают Церковь, противостоящую унии с МП, в маргинальную секту, отталкивают здравомысляших, порядочных людей и привлекают себе подобных. Этим они оказывают лучшую помощь только униатам, которым без подобной «альтернативы» трудно подобрать доводы за подчинение МП.

Интересно, что отвергая соборность, активисты «мансонвильцы» сходятся с «лавровцами». И те, и другие предпочитают власть канцелярии — авторитету собора, открытое честное обсуждение вопроса заменяют закулисными переговорами и синодальными указами. Очевидно, что и ньюиоркская и мансонвильская канцелярии завели Зарубежную Церковь в тупик. Поэтому главная идея, выдвигаемая Обществом Ревнителей Памяти Митрополита Антония — созыв собора, с целью отвержения унии и объединения всех верных наследию РПЦЗ, — это правильная идея. Многое должно решиться и уясниться на самом соборе. Сейчас важнее создать доброжелательную атмосферу взаимного доверия и терпимости между отвергающими унию с МП, чем заранее заготавливать какие-нибудь решения.

After the announcement of alleged changes in the government of the USSR, “patriarch” Aleksey II expressed his opinion that Metropolitan Sergey (Stragorodskiy) broke some canonical rules in his “Declaration”. This news, especially to Rus’ Abroad, gave us hope. Living abroad, we nurtured the hope that Holy Rus’ would rise in her former glory and that in thousands of churches there would once again be sung praises to our Lord. We hoped that, just as in the past when Rus’shook off the Tatar yoke and foreign invaders, so our great Motherland would now also rid herself of the invasion of the godless communist order. We had hoped that all that was foreign to the centuries-old life and spirit of Orthodox Russia would be shaken off, like a nightmare.

When it was announced that the communist government is no more and that the “Church” is now free, we, the inhabitants of Russia Abroad, waited for the Moscow Patriarchate to condemn the "Declaration" and to categorically distance itself from any association with it. However, to our great regret, the opposite occurred: the ties with and the dependence of the Moscow Patriarchate on the government of the RF, unchangingly remain close. The Moscow Patriarchate examined its relationship with the government apparatus. As a result, not only “patriarch” Aleksey, but also the other Bishops of the MP - protégés of the Communist regime – began to exalt Metropolitan Sergey as the savior of the “Church” and even proposed him as a candidate for sainthood.

We, citizens of Russian extraction living in the free countries of the world, do not share the view that “Christ’s Church” was somehow saved by Metropolitan Sergey, nor that Metropolitan Sergey in any way deserves of the least bit of veneration.

During the most frightful and systematic persecution of the Church and its faithful by the theomachist government, many millions of new martyrs and confessors of the Russian Church ascended to the Russian Golgotha. In jails, in exile, and in labor camps strewn all across our great and holy Motherland, millions of our compatriots, clergy or laity, famous or unknown, accepted martyrdom for Christ, for His Church, for the Holy Faith of our forefathers.

Only now, when the opportunity to study the documents of the MP has presented itself, when some of the correspondence of Metropolitan and “Patriarch” Sergey have been published, have church historians become aware of many details of the biography and activities of this Soviet hierarch, including his ecumenical and anticlerical beliefs, resembling those of Protestantism. In light of this, it becomes clear why the representatives of the MP Commission For Dialog With The ROCOR insisted on excluding the personality of “Patriarch” Sergey, his “Declaration”, and his activities from any discussions.

The conclusion, in 1918, of the Commission Enforcing The Decree Of Separation Of The Church From The Government does not need any further commentary. According to the Commission, “enforcement by the OGPU (United State Political Administration) of the policy of destroying the churchgoers who followed Tikhon should be acknowledged to be correct and advisable. To continue the policy for schism between Metropolitan Sergey (appointed by Peter as his temporary replacement with the title ‘Deputy to the locum tenens’) and Metropolitan Agathangel. . . strengthening simultaneously the third Tikhon hierarchy. . . headed by Archbishop Gregory as an independent entity. . .” Thus, as the documents show, the government plan for the destruction of the Church was through division, and Metropolitan Sergey played a pivotal role.

The head of the government was J. Stalin, and the head of the Church - Metropolitan Sergey. In their work, both were equally unprincipled, ready to take any steps against real or imagined competition or a rival in order to attain their own goals. Neither one had any strong beliefs. This type of behavior can be expected from a former terrorist and revolutionary who became the dictator of the land, but it is totally unacceptable for a clergyman, even unthinkable for a Bishop. Personally neither Stalin, (however there are rumors that he shot his wife himself) nor Metropolitan Sergey shot or exiled any people, they left that to others. However, they are both guilty of creating innumerable victims.

Metropolitan Sergey knew perfectly well that defrocking “noncompliant” clergy, and publishing the names of the faithful laity who refused to accept the “Declaration” brought on the most severe repression on the part of the theomachist government. Church services, as well as religious discussions, outside of the sergeynistic church were looked upon by the government as illegal and anti-governmental activity, punishable by law. And, knowing the consequences, Metropolitan Sergey continued to present to the government agencies clergy who were in disagreement with his “Declaration” for their merciless reprisals. In addition, Metropolitan Sergey, breaking church canons, would announce decisions regarding Bishops without the necessary investigation and without a church court with a quorum of Bishops. The punishing agencies arrested, together with the clergy, those faithful who were spiritually guided by them. Not an example to Saint Patriarch Tikhon, and those following him, Patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan Sergey, without the involvement of the Synod, often alone, would make important resolutions. As a result of such actions by Metropolitan Sergey, the church lost its Sobornost (participation of clergy and laity - “conciliar”); this was also lacking in the “election” of the Soviet “Patriarchs”.

Finding himself temporarily as the administrator of the Church, until the return of a legal Patriarchal locum tenens, (Metropolitan Sergey himself pointed out in his “notice accepting the duties of Deputy to the locum tenens, that the position was only ‘temporary’ ”), Metropolitan Sergey used any tool at his disposal to make sure that the legitimate Patriarchal locum tenens would not return to their duties. To the directive issued by Metropolitan Peter, that he “considers it imperative to remain the Patriarchal locum tenens, even though he is imprisoned” (Letter of Metropolitan Sergey to Metropolitan Agathangel of April 17/30 1926) Metropolitan Sergey pointed out that “but we will delay complying with his directives coming from prison, until such time that he himself returns to power, and will be able to answer for his own deeds, and it shall be decided whether these directives need to be obeyed or not.” (Letter to Metropolitan Agathangel of May 31, 1926) When Metropolitan Peter ordered that Metropolitan Agathangel should take over the reins of the administration and the duties of locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergey wrote to Metropolitan Agathangel: “Peter, who had handed over to me the reins of leadership, although temporarily but fully, himself deprived of the opportunity to be fully apprised of church affairs, can no longer either bear the responsibility for them, or, more importantly, involve himself in directing them. On the other hand, I (or whoever will be after me), accepting both the position of locum tenens as well as full responsibility for the proper flow of church affairs, cannot accept directives from Metropolitan Peter emanating from prison, in a manner other than as directives, or more correctly suggestions, coming from an irresponsible individual. . .” (Letter to Metropolitan Agathangel of May 31, 1926). Regarding his authority Metropolitan Sergey said: “The Patriarch’s locum tenens is a legal, canonical, indisputable bearer of Patriarchal power in all its fullness.”

Metropolitan Sergey did not dash the hopes of the Soviet government in its destruction of the Church by beginning a campaign of estranging Metropolitans Agathangel, Peter and others from the Church leadership. And after the announcement of the “Declaration”, the Russian Church “split” into two parts. The one part is entrenched in Sergianism, accommodating, penetrated with the spirit of anti-Christ’s falsehood, wholeheartedly cooperating with the “Party and government”,and held on a leash by the theomachist regime. The other part was that of Holy Tikhon which continued to follow uncompromisingly in the footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sergey, the first Soviet “Patriarch”, was a renovator who took a new course, betraying the Church, the Holy Patriarch Tikhon, and the faithful. His “comrade in arms” – the second Soviet “Patriarch”, Aleksey (Simanskiy), betrayed Metropolitan Veniamin to the godless Soviet government. Together they both led their “church” – the Moscow Patriarchate—in the footsteps of the father of falsehood. Besides everything else, with the aid of the warring atheistic government, they allowed into their clergy morally unworthy people, thus encouraging the all-encompassing destruction of the church. The madmen proclaimed terror against the true Church of God. However, the Holy Church, as we know, survived. But attrition occurred. The chaff, as well as those less strong in their faith, sifted to one side, and the others voluntarily followed the path to martyrdom. Those who inherited positions from those first Soviet “patriarchs” continued the politics of servility toward the godless government, consciously trying to “destroy” the Church, forcing the truly faithful to join the Catacomb Church (today it is called the True Orthodox Church)

The many millions of martyrs for the Orthodox faith and Confessors of the Russian Church – victims of the Soviet Regime and the Soviet Metropolitan/Patriarch, who suffered for the Truth, have been added to the list of All-Russian Saints. Their memory is venerated, both in the Motherland, and Outside of Russia. They stand at the throne of the Most-High Lord, and fervently pray for all of us sinners, for the much suffering Russian people, and for the entire world. Orthodox faithful in the entire world, both Russian and not, appeal with prayers to them, to the multitude of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, for their protection. On the other hand, it is no wonder that the Russian faithful have given Metropolitan Sergey the nickname Okaianniy - “the Cursed”!

Can it be possible that ROCOR, which until now has kept her faith to Christ and total independence from lay governments, now will unite with the MP and will also embark on the path of falsehood, betrayal to Christ, service to a non-Christian government, leaving its main responsibility – the salvation of the souls of the faithful? Can it be that the Church leadership of ROCOR does not understand that neither the Church nor Russia can be saved with lies?

We firmly believe that, with the intercession of the great assembly of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, Orthodox Russia will still be resurrected and because of them, the spiritual unity of the Russian Orthodox Church was never broken. We firmly believe that a time will come, when in this Church, which always remained free of lies and falsehood, betrayals and the service to anti-Christ’s government, once again the majestic hymn will be heard in the Kremlin Cathedrals: “God is with us, understand all you nations and submit yourself, thou is with us”. We firmly believe that the Holy Orthodox Russian Church will be able to continue her holy mission in the spheres of moral/religious education of the people. We firmly believe that no political, social, legal or economic system is capable of educating a wholesome human society: only Christ’s Church offers the unique “system” for the good of each individual and society as a whole—the love of God and one’s neighbor.

As we witness the sad decline of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia under Metropolitan Lavr (ROCOR) into the embraces of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), it may be worth reviewing some of the arguments that members of the MP (and now even many members of the ROCOR) produce when challenged by members of the True Russian Church. These arguments have varied considerably with time, and even the MP would no doubt be ashamed of some of the arguments used in Soviet times, when respect for both the Church and the State of the Soviet Union was much higher than it is now. We shall not review these “old” arguments that even the MP is now ashamed of, but shall turn to the “new” ones that have appeared since the fall of communism – although sometimes they are simply the “old” ones souped up in a more contemporary, subtler form.

One argument employed by contemporary advocates of the MP, and even by the MP Patriarch Alexis himself is that since the ROCOR was formed as a temporarily autonomous organization until the fall of communism, it must now dissolve itself insofar as communism fell nearly twelve years ago.

Two questions are immediately elicited by this argument. First, has communism really fallen? And secondly, even if it has fallen, why should the ROCOR dissolve itself by joining the MP?

I think we cannot deny that in 1991 communism fell in the particular statist form that we know as the Soviet Union, or Soviet power. I think it is equally undeniable that, at least since New Year’s Day, 2000, when KGB Colonel Putin came to power, it has been in the process of being reconstructed.

The evidence is manifold. KGB men – and let us recall Putin’s remark that “there is no such thing as an ex-KGB man” - now occupy about 50% of the top governmental posts in the Soviet – sorry, Russian - federation.[1] The Soviet anthem has been re-established as the country’s national anthem; the red flag has been restored to the armed forces. Putin has toasted Stalin, and recently a new monument to Stalin was unveiled before a huge and enthusiastic crowd in Ishim, Siberia (the see of ROCOR Bishop Evtikhy). It goes without saying that Lenin’s mummy remains in its pagan mausoleum in Red Square. The Chechen war continues to be waged in a hideously cruel, typically Soviet manner. The media are once again coming under tight state control (witness the way in which the independent NTV station was simply taken over). Even the fledgling capitalist economy is under threat, and its stock market is plunging, as a result of the recent imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the State’s seizure of a large part of his company’s shares. So if there was a time for the ROCOR to dissolve itself, it was in 1991, but not now.

In any case, what is the ROCOR to do after its self-dissolution? The Fathers of the ROCOR always spoke of an All-Russian Council assembling after the fall of communism, which would sort out the problems of the Russian Church, elect a canonical patriarch, etc. Obviously by such an All-Russian Council they did not mean a Council just of the MP, but a Council in which the ROCOR and the Catacomb Church would be included. In fact, probably a Council from which the MP would be excluded, but to which individual hierarchs of the MP would come to offer their repentance, on the model of the iconoclasts at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. It is strange how little talk about such a Council there has been since the supposed fall of communism…

Since no one seems to want to talk about an all-Russian Council, let us consider some other alternatives. One is for the ROCOR to proclaim itself the one and only Russian Orthodox Church. This was actually suggested by Protopriest Lev Lebedev in the early 1990s, and appears to have been adopted to some extent by the ROCOR at that time. However, this was never done with much conviction (except when dealing with “dissidents” inside Russia), and by the late 1990s the talk was rather of a “reunification” of the different parts of the Russian Church – by which was meant the reunification only of the ROCOR and the MP.

But on what basis? On an equal basis, as if the ROCOR and the MP were both equally legitimate parts of the Russian Church, two “sisters” of the same mother who had just had a quarrel and were now prepared to forgive and forget? But this “ecumenist” solution was not really acceptable to either side, since the MP resolutely calls itself (and is believed by many even in the ROCOR to be) the sole “Mother Church”, to which the ROCOR must “return” like a naughty child to her parents, while the ROCOR believes that the MP must repent of certain dogmatic and canonical errors – sergianism, ecumenism - before it can be forgiven.

However, it is becoming more and more obvious – if it was ever really in doubt – that the MP, at least in its upper reaches, will not and cannot repent. At most it will bend a little to pressure coming, not from the ROCOR, but from its own people, as in the case of its half-hearted and qualified canonization of the Tsar-Martyr. The MP had a golden opportunity to repent in 1991, when the chains imposed by its Soviet masters fell away, and there was a danger of a large-scale exodus from the patriarchate. But it did not repent. And now, when it is in a much stronger position than in 1991, and the ROCOR is much weaker, it is less likely than ever to repent.

Not only is it not repenting: like the dog of the proverb, it is returning to its own vomit. Thus ecumenism continues unabated since the fall of communism. The patriarch’s incredible speech to the Jewish rabbis in November, 1991 has not been repented of, membership of the WCC continues as before, and while there are complaints about Catholic proselytism it looks as if the Pope is going to visit Russia with the MP’s agreement.

The MP today, amazing to tell, is no less enthusiastically pro-Soviet than the civil government. Priests regularly praise Stalin - and now these panegyrics cannot be excused on the grounds that they are made under duress. The idea that the MP has repented of sergianism is laughable. Consider the patriarch’s latest statement on Metropolitan Sergius’ notorious declaration, on November 9, 2001: “This was a clever step by which Metropolitan Sergius tried to save the church and clergy.”[2]

The ROCOR leadership knows all this perfectly well. But it also knows that it is weak, and has therefore come to the conclusion: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” The leopard, they try and persuade us, has changed its spots; the tree with an evil root is now bringing forth good fruits. But as we know from the Holy Scriptures, a leopard cannot change its spots, and “a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them…” (Matthew 7.17-19).

In order to make sure of this point, let us briefly look at fruits of the six most powerful metropolitans of the MP, one of whom is likely to be the next patriarch:-

(1) Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Kolomna and Krutitsa was described in 1994 by the OCA Bishop Basil (Rodzianko) of Washington as “not only a scoundrel, but, perhaps, something much worse than that” (testimony of Michael Rodzianko). Sergei Bychkov wrote in 1999 that he “has never served a day in a parish. He knows the problems and needs of the clergy only by hearsay. Although he came up through all the ranks, he spent the most difficult years for the Russian church abroad. He served in Berlin, Jerusalem, Prague, and even in Japan. He headed OVTsS [the Department of External Church Relations] for almost ten years. He thought that he would be elected patriarch in 1990 after the death of Patriarch Pimen. But he did not make it even to the second round. This so upset him that he suffered a heart attack. But after recovering, he reconciled himself to the situation and began to support the rise of Master [Cyril] Gundiaev. Metropolitan Yuvenaly is notorious in church circles for his nontraditional sexual orientation. A number of monasteries in the area around Moscow have already been turned into annexes of Sodom.”

(2) Metropolitan Cyril of Smolensk, the friend of Metropolitan Yuvenaly and head of the Department of External Church Relations, is an extreme ecumenist and an importer of tobacco and spirits duty-free. Bychkov writes of him that “until recently he was absolutely certain that after the death of Patriarch Alexis II he would undoubtedly become primate of the Russian church. True, events of this year have shaken Master Gundiaev's assurance…. Metropolitan Kirill's tobacco and alcohol scandals have undermined his authority on the international level. Nevertheless he has held onto his positions in the synod. He knows very well the weaknesses of members of the synod and he skillfully manipulates them. This is the great talent of the metropolitan. His impudence and frankness befuddle weak minds. Synod members who know about his ties with high places are not about to withstand his unbearable pressure. His close friendship with Berezovsky also has brought its fruits; the metropolitan has compromising information not only about all of the episcopacy but even about the patriarch and he occasionally leaks it to the press.” According to the witness of an MP priest, Metropolitan Cyril once came into his church and saw an icon of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas on the analoy. “Get the Tsar out of here!” he said severely!

(3) Metropolitan Vladimir of St. Petersburg, another extreme ecumenist who is in favour of introducing the new calendar into the Russian Church was, writes Bychkov, “a representative of the Moscow patriarchate at the World Council of Churches in Geneva. At the end of the 1960s he was patriarchal exarch of western Europe and served in Berlin. He is notorious for his aristocratic manners (if he wears cuff links then they must be jeweled). Emulating Catherine II's favorite Grigory Potemkin, he enjoys fresh oysters which are brought to him from Paris and London. But his guests are most affected by his wine cellars. Metropolitan Vladimir Sabodan, who replaced him in Rostov on Don, nearly lost consciousness when he caught sight of and tasted the wines from the metropolitan's cellars. In the 1970-1980s his career rise halted and he was shuttled from one episcopal see to another. Patriarch Pimen was not well disposed toward him. Only after his death did Vladimir come into favor again. From 1995 he has ruled the St. Petersburg diocese, thereby becoming a permanent member of the Holy Synod. In Petersburg he began restoring order with an "iron hand," primarily in financial matters, overturning traditions that had arisen over decades (oysters are expensive nowadays). Metropolitan Vladimir's ministry has been constantly accompanied by scandals. Their causes are his inability and lack of desire to get along with clergy. His administrative style is authoritarian.”

(4) Metropolitan Methodius of Voronezh was until recently one of the strongest candidates to succeed the present patriarch. But in 1992 he was described by his colleague, Archbishop Chrysostom of Vilna, as “a KGB officer, an atheist, a liar, who is constantly advised by the KGB”. An atheist for patriarch? All things are possible in the MP!

(5) , (6). Metropolitans Philaret of Minsk and Vladimir of Kiev are both, according to Bychkov, homosexuals who “share one thing in common: under their administrations the largest monasteries--the Kiev caves lavra and the Zhirovitsy monastery--have become examples of Sodom and Gomorra. ‘Gay families’ coexist peacefully in them, concealed by monastic garments.”

Well, on July 19, 1999, according to Bychkov, the Synod “devoted much time to the scandals involving the homosexual conduct of two bishops, Nikon Mironov of Ekaterinburg and Gury Shalimov of Korsun. The press devoted so much attention to poor Bishop Nikon that he is notorious throughout Russia. The behaviour of Bishop Gury was just as scandalous. The Holy Synod sent both into retirement, that is, it dismissed them, confirming thereby the justice of the journalistic accusations. But it dismissed them in conditions of strictest secrecy!”[3]

Ah, but then there are the wonderfully holy village priests and old women that the supporters of the MP like to talk about! Personally, I have not met any holy priests in the MP. And as for the old women, I know of people who were put off Orthodoxy for years by the appallingly boorish behaviour of the old women in MP churches.

Of course, I may be missing something. But even if I am, what does that prove? What does the presence of good, sincere people in the MP (and I have no doubt that there are many) prove about the MP? No more than the presence of good and sincere people among the Roman Catholics or Protestants about their churches. That is to say: nothing. For is the truth and grace of a Church defined by the quality of some of its junior members, or by the confession of faith of its leaders? The latter, of course…

But the supporters of the MP are very fond of this “bottom-up” ecclesiology of theirs. They love to assert that even if the older generation of bishops are all KGB agents (not even the patriarch denies that he is, and has been for a long time!), the next generation are going to be wonderful.

But why? Why should those appointed by KGB agents, ecumenists and homosexuals be anti-sergianists, anti-ecumenists and irreproachable chaste? Is it not much more likely that they will be at least partially tainted by the vices of their teachers, whom they chose to follow knowing their vices? “Know ye not,” says the Apostle Paul, speaking about precisely such vices, “that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (I Corinthians 5.6).

According to his brother Michael, the OCA Bishop Basil of Washington said, after a trip to Moscow: “Now I agree with you: amongst the young folks there, there are many wonderful Orthodox people,” and, briefly remaining silent, he added, “but it will require yet another entire generation, or perhaps even longer, before everything gets back to normal”. So, if we accept the testimony even of this pro-Moscow witness, the ROCOR bishops should wait at least another generation before thinking of joining the MP.

And yet even this pessimistic estimate seems to me to be unreasonably optimistic. It depends on several assumptions, viz.: (1) that these “wonderful Orthodox people” will remain in the corrupt MP, and will not feel compelled by their conscience to leave it, (2) that the present leaders of the MP will choose to promote precisely these “wonderful Orthodox people” and not corrupt time-servers like themselves, and (3) that even if, by some extraordinary coincidence, some of these “wonderful Orthodox people” are promoted to positions of power in the church, they will still be wonderful and Orthodox by that time, and will not have been corrupted by the terrible environment they find themselves in.

The fact remains that, while a certain degree of regeneration can take place in a Church from below, that regeneration cannot go far, and will in time peter out, until and unless it is supported and strengthened by regeneration from above. For it is a basic principle of Orthodox ecclesiology that the faith of a Church is defined by the faith of its hierarchs. And if those hierarchs are heretical, then all those in obedience to them share, to a greater or lesser degree, in their heresy. You cannot be an Orthodox Christian while remaining knowingly under the omophorion of a heretical bishop.

“But no,” said one pious MP layman to me recently. “This is the ecclesiological equivalent of the Filioque heresy! Grace does not come from God and the hierarchs. It comes from God alone! It can bypass the heretical hierarchs and go straight to the people!”

Then there is hope for the Roman Catholics, who don’t have to worry about the heresy of their Pope! And hope for the Protestants, who said all along that the hierarchy and the priesthood were unnecessary! And hope for all those “Orthodox” individualists (and there are very many of them) who construct their spiritual lives independently of the church organization to which they belong, justifying themselves on the grounds that they have a direct line to God that does not pass through the hierarch’s office!

Yes, we do have a direct line to God. And God can certainly give grace to a believer directly, independently of any hierarch or priest. But nobody can receive the grace of baptism, or of chrismation, or of the Body and Blood of Christ, without which salvation is impossible, except at the hands of a canonically appointed and rightly believing priest. That is the order God has ordained. And He has also ordained that this channel of sacramental grace does not pass through the hands of heretics or those who represent them…

Another, not dissimilar argument that is sometimes heard is that the rapid building of churches and monasteries in contemporary Russia shows that, whatever the defects of the leaders, the resurrection of Russia is taking place, and that, this being the case, instead of standing aside and carping, it is necessary to have a more positive attitude, to join in the renewal process. And that involves entering into communion. After all, they assert, perhaps we (the ROCOR hierarchs) can have a good influence on the hierarchy, perhaps we can put a brake on the negative aspects of patriarchal life, perhaps we can help to tame the leopard…

It is difficult to believe that anyone actually believes this argument. As Nicholas Kazantsev has recently pointed out, the ROCOR has acted as a brake on the MP only so long as it has existed outside the MP as a genuinely independent force.[4] Once the tiny ROCOR pond has been poured into the MP ocean, it will cease to have any influence at all.

As it is, such influence as it has had has been rapidly declining in recent years in exact proportion to its rapprochement with the patriarchate. Surveys show that the influence of the ROCOR was at its greatest immediately after the fall of communism, in the early 1990s, when the ROCOR actually fought against the MP and the MP was seriously rattled. But then came the 1994 conciliar decision to enter into negotiations with the MP, the expulsion of the Suzdal dissenters in 1995, and Archbishop Mark’s meeting with the patriarch in 1997, as a direct result of which the MP felt emboldened to seize Hebron and Jericho, and the Oak of Abraham at Hebron died after four thousand years of life…

No, the leopard has not been tamed, and it will not be tamed by the ROCOR, in whatever form it may continue to exist after the unia with the MP…

There are in fact strong grounds for believing in a future resurrection of the Russian Church. These strong grounds consist in the prophecies of the saints, which speak precisely about such a resurrection. But it is important to note that these prophecies do not state that the MP will gradually evolve into the True Church – that is, that good fruit will gradually begin to appear on the corrupt tree, transforming the tree from bad to good, from corrupt to life-giving. On the contrary, St. Seraphim of Sarov says that at that time “the Russian hierarchs will become so impious that they will not even believe in the most important dogma of the Faith of Christ – the resurrection of Christ and the general resurrection. That is why it will be pleasing to the Lord God to take me from this very temporary life for a time and then, for the establishment of the dogma of the resurrection, to raise me, and my resurrection will be like the resurrection of the seven youths in the cave of Okhlon…”

And then, continues the saint, he will begin the process of world-wide repentance; for the absolutely necessary condition of true resurrection is repentance.

The prophecies speak, not of an evolution of the MP from evil to good, nor of the repentance of the bishops, but of a more or less complete removal of the higher clergy of the Church. The initiative for this will not come from well-known bishops, but from people unknown to the world, according to Elder Porphyrius of Glinsk (+1868): "In due course, faith will collapse in Russia. The brilliance of earthly glory will blind the mind. The word of truth will be defiled, but with regard to the Faith, some from among the people, unknown to the world, will come forward and restore what was scorned."

And the instrument of this restoration will be a True Orthodox Tsar. Thus Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, passing on the tradition of the Valaam elders, wrote: “... The Lord will have mercy on Russia for the sake of the small remnant of true believers. In Russia, the elders said, in accordance with the will of the people, the Monarchy, Autocratic power, will be re-established. The Lord has forechosen the future Tsar. He will be a man of fiery faith, having the mind of a genius and a will of iron. First of all he will introduce order in the Orthodox Church, removing all the untrue, heretical and lukewarm hierarchs. And many, very many - with few exceptions, all - will be deposed, and new, true, unshakeable hierarchs will take their place. He will be of the family of the Romanovs according to the female line. Russia will be a powerful state, but only for 'a short time'... And then the Antichrist will come into the world, with all the horrors of the end as described in the Apocalypse."

As for the lower ranks, Catacomb Eldress Agatha of Belorussia, who was martyred by the Bolsheviks at the age of 119 (!), counselled them not to go to the MP: "This is not a true church. It has signed a contract to serve the Antichrist. Do not go to it. Do not receive any mysteries from its servants. Do not participate in prayer with them.” They were to wait for the triumph of Orthodoxy, when the people will show their true repentance by being baptised by True Orthodox clergy: 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 Putin met the ROCOR hierarchs in New York, he used the argument that the ROCOR should join with the MP in “serving the homeland”, its culture and traditions. This is a powerful emotional argument for Russians and those who love Russia. After all, who would not want to serve his homeland? Who would want to appear unpatriotic? And especially now that the homeland is beginning to take on the appearance, externally at any rate, of an Orthodox country, and Orthodoxy is being protected by the State as an inalienable part of the national culture of Russia.

But what is the ultimate value here – the State or the Church, the earthly homeland or the Heavenly Homeland, God or Mammon? If Orthodoxy is to be protected because it serves the Homeland, or the State, or culture, or any other value whatsoever apart from eternal salvation with God, then it is no longer Orthodoxy but at best an exhibit in a museum or a zoo, at worst an idol.

In early, Kievan and Muscovite Russia, the Church was protected, not because it helped to support the State (although it did do that), and not because it constituted a part of Russia’s cultural heritage (although it was that), but because the State of Russia and Russia as a whole existed in order to serve the Church, without which neither the State nor the Nation had more than an ephemeral significance. The earthly homeland, in Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow’s phrase, was the “antechamber” of the Heavenly Homeland. Membership of the earthly homeland was treasured and was fought for because it served as a stepping-stone to membership of the Heavenly Homeland, the Kingdom of Heaven – and for no other reason.

Russia was “Holy Russia” precisely because she served something higher than herself, the ideal of holiness, the ideal of union in faith and love with God. And she began to descend to the far lesser ideal of “Great Russia” under Peter the Great only when she began to serve herself rather than God, when the Church became a tool in the hands of the State, serving the State’s this-worldly aims. However, under the later Romanov Tsars the great ship that was Russia began to return to her heavenly calling, to become holy again. This process accelerated under Tsar-Martyr Nicholas, who led Russia into World War I, not for the sake of her and his greater earthly glory, but to save Orthodoxy in her sister-nation of Serbia. And when the Tsar abdicated, dooming himself and his family to ignominy and death, he did so in order that this war-effort should continue – in other words, for the sake of Orthodoxy in the true sense.

But in today’s Russia, as Protopriest Lev Lebedev writes, “the ideological idol under the name of ‘fatherland’ (‘Russia’, ‘the state’) has been completely preserved. We have already many times noted that these concepts are, in essence, pagan ideological idols not because they are in themselves bad, but because they have been torn out from the trinitarian unity of co-subjected concepts: Faith, Tsar, Fatherland (Orthodoxy, Autocracy, People)… Everything that one might wish to be recognized and positive, even the regeneration of the faith, is done under the slogan of ‘the regeneration of the Fatherland (Russia)’! But nothing is being regenerated. Even among the monarchists the regeneration of the Orthodox Autocratic Monarchy is mainly represented as no more than the means for the regeneration of the Fatherland. We may note that if any of the constituent parts of the triad – Orthodoxy, Autocracy, People – is torn away from the others and becomes the only one, it loses its power. Only together and in the indicated hierarchical order did they constitute, and do they constitute now, the spiritual (and all the other) strength and significance of Great Russia. But for the time being it is the ideological idol ‘fatherland’ that holds sway…”[5]

If the ROCOR wishes to serve the Fatherland, she must wait for the true Fatherland to appear above the horizon, like the submerged city of Kitezh. To embrace the semi-Soviet, pseudo-Orthodox Fatherland that is Putin’s Russia would be a betrayal of her calling, a betrayal of the true Russia.

[1] Nicholas Kazantsev, “Nel’zia ob’edinit’sa s patriarkhiej!”, Nasha Strana, № 2739, 1 November, 2004

[2] http://www.ripnet.org/besieged/rparocora.htm?

[3] Bychkov, “The Synod against a Council”, Moskovskii komsomolets, August 20, 1999, quoted by Joseph Legrande, “Re: [paradosis] Re: Solovki (WAS: Dealing with Heresy)”, orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com, 31 August, 2002.

[4] Kazantsev, op. cit.

[5] Lebedev, Velikorossia, St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 655.

Перенесение мощей Митрополита Филарета
Третьего Первоиерарха Русской Православной Зарубежной Церкви

Третьего ноября (ст. стиля) гроб владыки митрополита Филарета был открыт в присутствии нескольких священников. Я разговаривал с двумя священниками.

Они увидели, что тело владыки покрыто белым веществом. На одеянии тоже был белый налет. Когда они счистили это белое вещество, то обнаружили, что лицо и руки совершенно целы. Было даже отмечено, что тело и кожа - в лучшем состоянии и более светлого цвета, чем у владыки Иоанна Шанхайского. Один из священников омывал его руки и лицо водой и вином. Он сказал, что можно было