Vernost' Number 90

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.

5. РУССКИЕ ОБЯЗАНЫ ОБЛАДАТЬ МОНОПОЛИЕЙ НА ВЛАСТЬ. Олег Мезенцев

6. ПРОВИНЦИЯ – ХРАНИТЕЛЬНИЦА ХУДОЖЕСТВЕННЫХ И КУЛЬТУРНЫХ ЦЕННОСТЕЙ.

7. КАКИЕ У НЕГО ЧИСТЫЕ ГЛАЗА... Игумен Амвросий /Шевчук/

10. ЗАЩИТНИКИ НЕБОЛЬШОГО ГАРНИЗОНА ЦИТАДЕЛИ. Николай Казанцев

11. EXTRACTS FROM "THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA and other writings by ST. ALEXIS".

13. ПРЕОСВЯЩЕННЫЙ ВЛАДЫКА АРХИЕПИСКОП ДИМИТРИЙ (МАГАН). Г. Солдатов

Владыка Антоний с сердечным умилением любил вспоминать об отношении русского народа к своему Царю. Так на общественном собрании в Белграде 12 октября 1930 года владыка среди других воспоминаний рассказал следующее:

… В г. Искорости, где Святая Ольга, до принятия христианства, мстила за смерть своего мужа, я был свидетелем того, как представлялись Государю либеральные интеллигенты и простые мужики. Либерал, земский начальник, который перед этим учил волостного старшину, как надо держать себя при представлении, был бледен, как полотно, и дрожал, как лист. А простец мужик, совершенно спокойно с радостными глазами отвечал Государю «Так точно, Ваше Императорское Величество. Никак нет Ваше Величество».

Вот в этом то и сказывается характерная особенность воззрений русского народа на царскую власть и на личность Царя. Русский народ считает всю Россию как бы большой семьей, в которой Царь является отцом, призванным охранять нравственную сторону жизни и быть носителем и выразителем правды. Конечно, в каждом человеческом установлении на земле могут быть злоупотребления, но, представлениям русского народа, Царь не может иметь злой воли и поэтому, Царь Иоанн IV назван не Царь злодей, а Царь Грозный. Народ убежден, что, если Царь применяет жесткие меры и строгие наказания, то, очевидно, это так и нужно для искоренения крамолы и подавления мятежей. Зато сын Иоанна IV – Царь Феодор Иоаннович устами Пушкина назван – Царь-Ангел. Ни в одном народе носитель верховной власти не имеет такого именования, как Русский Царь, - Царь-батюшка, Царица-матушка. Те, кто хочет понимать русскую верховную власть формально и ограничивать ее тем, что составляет высший идеал для европейской жизни, а именно юридическими нормами, никогда ничего не поймут в русской жизни, основа которой формируется по другим, нравственным законам, которые давно уже оставила европейская жизнь.

Некрасов, который был, в общем, настроен оппозиционно, задумал свою повесть «Кому жить на Руси хорошо» с тем, чтобы доказать, что на Руси жить хорошо только пьяному, но в нем победило художественное чутье и он, поддаваясь поэтическому вдохновению, должен был в конце своей поэмы воспеть дифирамбы Государю Александру II («Славься свободу давший народу») Также и Лев Толстой, когда он отдавался своему художественному гению и освобождался от глупых немецких пантеистических теорий, рисовал дивные картины русской бытовой жизни в указанном смысле («Власть тьмы»), а с другой стороны описывал развитие греховных страстей в духе противоположном его предвзятому рационализму.

Вот таким же Царем Ангелом был и наш последний Государь Николай Александрович. И вот этого нравственного брильянта русской жизни мы лишились по собственной беспечности, лишились потому, что слушали нелепые бессмысленные речи наших лжелибералов, которые завели весь русский народ в современную яму».

Recently Pope Benedict XVI has returned to the traditional ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church, declaring that it is “the one true church of Christ”.[1] On the one hand, we must welcome the frankness of the Pope, and the restraint this statement will probably exert on Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism. On the other hand, we can only deplore the double-talk of the papacy over the last forty years since Vatican II, which while appearing to abandon the exclusive claims of the papacy in public when talking with non-Catholics, in private continued to maintain them.

In view of this reversion to earlier modes of thought, it may be useful to review the first stage in the Orthodox Churches’ encounter with ecumenism, at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries.

At that time the first see in Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, was going through a difficult period. One of the reasons for this was its exposure, at the centre of the Ottoman Empire, to various heterodox influences – not only the Islam of the Ottoman rulers, but also the Catholicism and Protestantism of the West. Another reason was its own internal divisions.

The Catholics were for the first time adopting a more “eirenical”, ecumenist approach to inter-Church relations at this time. Pope Leo XIII had already shown himself a liberal in political terms, striving to come closer to the republican government of France, the Kaiser’s Germany and even the revolutionary movement. He brought the Vatican into the world of stock-market speculation, and founded the first Vatican bank. Then, on June 20, 1894, he issued an encyclical on the union of the Churches “addressed,” in the words of Patriarch Anthimus’ encyclical in reply dated August, 1895, “to the sovereigns and peoples of the whole world, in which he also called on our Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ to unite with the throne of the Pope, understanding this union in the sense that we should recognize him as the supreme pontiff and the highest spiritual and secular head of the whole Church scattered throughout the earth and the only deputy of Christ on earth and distributor of all grace”. The encyclical that the patriarch wrote in reply to the Pope lists all the heresies of the papacy and calls on it to return to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. For “truly,” continues the encyclical, “every Christian heart must be filled with the desire for the union of the Churches, especially the union of the whole Orthodox world… Therefore in her public prayers [the Orthodox Church] prays for the union of all those who are dispersed and for the return of all those who erred to the correct path of the truth, which alone can lead to the Life of all that exists, the Only-Begotten Son and Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ…”

The Catholic writer Adrian Fortescue finds this worthy reply “unpardonably offensive”. In revenge, as it were, he mocks the internal divisions within the patriarchate in a manner that is tendentious but which nevertheless is worth quoting as demonstrating how the undeniably scandalous state of the patriarchate was perceived by the outside world: “In 1894 [Ecumenical Patriarch] Lord Neophytos VIII occupied the see. He was a prelate who really cared for the dignity and independence of his Church, and by way of restoring them he ventured on a feeble attempt at resisting the tyranny of the Porte [the Ottoman government] in canonical matters. But when he asked the other Orthodox Churches to help him (Russia could have claimed almost anything as the acknowledged protector of all Orthodox Rayahs), their jealousy of the Phanar was so much greater than their zeal for ecclesiastical independence that no one would do anything. The Bulgarian trouble, to which of course he could not put an end, alienated his own friends – they always seem to accuse the perfectly helpless Patriarch when the Bulgars become specially unbearable – so the Porte had no difficulty in making them depose him. On October 25 (O.S.), 1894, the synod and the mixed council agreed that he must resign, and a deputation of five members waited on him to inform him of their unanimous decision. So Neophytos VIII had to go back to private life in his house on the Antigone island. Having got rid of the Patriarch, the synod and the mixed council quarrelled so badly about his successor that their members excommunicated each other, and things came to an absolute block, till the Minister of Religions, Riza Pasha, wrote to say that he had annulled all their acts, and that they were to elect a new Patriarch at once. In defiance of the law the Porte struck off seven names from the first list of twenty-eight candidates which was sent up; one of these names was that of Germanos of Heraclea, who would otherwise almost certainly have been chosen. The popular candidate was the ex-Patriarch, Joachim III (1878-1884), but (it was said at the time) Germanos managed to get his name struck off too; so at last Anthimos VII (Metropolitan of Leros and Kalymnos) was elected. There was a tumult at his enthronement; the people wanted Joachim, and would cry ‘Unworthy’ (AnqimoV anaxioV) instead of the proper form. Germanos had prudently retired to Vienna. However, Lord Anthimos began the reign in which he chiefly distinguished himself by his unpardonably offensive answer to the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. In two years the popular party succeeded in having him deposed. The immediate reason was the affair of Ambrose of Uskub [Skopje], in which he was accused of betraying the cause of Hellas. No accusation could have been more unjust. The cause of Hellas is the one thing no Œcumenical Patriarch ever betrays; he was only helpless before the Porte and the Russians. He did his best to keep his see. As soon as he heard that the synod wanted him to retire he suspended the leaders of the opposition and ordered them to go back to their dioceses. Of course they refused to obey. Poor Anthimos did all a man could. He went to the Yildiz-Kiösk and implored the Sultan to protect him, but the Sultan had other things to think about, and, on February 8, 1897, he went to swell the number of ex-Patriarchs, who wait in hope of being some day re-elected. There were now three – Joachim III, Neophytos VIII, and Anthimos VII. Constantine V (Valiades) was elected Patriarch in April. Lord Constantine seems to have been one of the best of all the later Œcumenical Patriarchs. He set about reforming the education of priests, insisted that the services of the Church should be celebrated with proper reverence, and modified some of the incredibly pretentious etiquette which his court had inherited from the days of the Old Empire. There seemed no possible reason why he should be deposed, except that the parties of the ex-Patriarchs wanted their candidates to have another chance. In the spring of 1901 it was first rumoured that Lord Constantine V was shaking on his throne. Twelve metropolitans of his synod and six laymen in the mixed council voted for his resignation. The rich bankers and merchants of the Phanar were all in favour of Germanos Karavangelis, of Pera. Constantine tried to remove that danger by sending him to be Metropolitan of Kastoria, a long way off in Macedonia. Nevertheless, on April 9^th, Constantine’s resignation was demanded by both synod and mixed council. But he did not want to resign, and for a time the Porte supported him. The Greek paper Anatolia, strongly partisan of the ex-Patriarch, Joachim III, all too hurriedly announced that Constantine had ceased to reign. It was immediately suppressed by the Government, and its proprietor was put in prison. The free Greeks of the kingdom were also all for Constantine. But in Holy Week his metropolitans again waited on him with the demand that he should resign. He was naturally indignant that they should disturb him during these august days, and he declared that his health was perfectly good and that he intended to go on presiding over the Orthodox Church. Four metropolitans were on his side. He celebrated the services of Holy Week surrounded by these four, but boycotted by all the rest of his synod. The opposition then sent an order to the four, forbidding them to communicate with the deposed one, and they besieged the Minister of Religions, Abdurrahman, with petitions for his removal. The Porte tried to save him as long as it could, but the opposition was too strong. Again there was an absolute block at the Phanar. The synod refused to sit under Constantine; and so he fell. He retired to Chalki, and Joachim III was re-elected. Lord Joachim, the reigning Patriarch, had already occupied the throne of Constantinople from 1878 to 1884. Since then he had been an ex-Patriarch with a strong party demanding his re-election. On Friday, June 7 (O.S.), 1901, after the fall of Constantine V, he was chosen by eight-three votes, and the Porte then gave him his berat….”[2]

Joachim III introduced a period of relative stability into the patriarchate. But it was precisely in this period that the influence of Anglican ecumenism came most strongly to bear. Thus according to the leading organ of the patriarchate, “the first impulse towards official communion between the two Churches (Orthodox and Protestant) was provided by the Lambeth conference of July, 1897, in which 194 bishops from the whole Anglican communion came together and unanimously voted for action aimed at the union of the Churches… After this, in February, 1898, Archbishop Friedrich of Canterbury sent letters to the Patriarchs of the East and the Archbishop of Cyprus with copies of the decisions of the conference with regard to the union of the Churches… He asked the Orthodox Church accept the baptism of the Anglicans and allow her priests to give the Divine Gifts to dying Anglicans in places where they did not have their own priests… In September, 1899, in a letter to Patriarch Constantine V the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed the burning desire of the English for clearer understanding and the establishment of closer relations, declaring that it would be difficult to set out the details of such a course and that the longed-for communion should proceed with ever-increasing depth insofar as the determination of some kind of programme towards this end had been shown to be difficult… He pointed out that the communion of the two Churches would become surer through the cessation of proselytism, through visits of Orthodox clergy to London and of the Archbishop of Canterbury and English priests to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople on the great feasts and other official days, and through each Church telling the other of important changes taking place in her… On the basis of an agreement on these points by both sides, mutual correspondence began in December, 1900 and continued. After this various other events took place demonstrating the friendly relations between the two Churches…”[3]

The first such “demonstration of friendly relations” was Patriarch Joachim’s declaring, in 1902, that Papism and Protestantism were “great ramifications (anadendradaV) of Christianity”. However, before embarking on an ecumenist course, he wisely decided to issue an encyclical asking all the other Orthodox Churches (except Antioch and Bulgaria, whose hierarchies, for different reasons, he did not recognise) to express their opinions on union with the western churches. He also asked their opinion on the proposed change to the new, Gregorian calendar. This was related to the ecumenical venture, because the difference between the old, Julian calendar used in the Orthodox East and the new, Gregorian calendar used in the Catholic-Protestant West was the first obstacle to the practical implementation of ecumenism – celebrating the major Christian feasts together.

The Local Orthodox Churches were unanimous in their rejection of the new calendar (Alexandria and strife-torn Cyprus did not reply). As for ecumenism, it is instructive to read the summary of the Churches’ replies by a Fortescue: “His Holiness [Joachim III] speaks of the Latins with every possible charity, moderation, and courtesy, and hopes for reunion with us. Which hope may God fulfil. The difference of his tone from that of Anthimos VII, in the famous answer to Pope Leo XIII, is very remarkable. The answers of the sister-Churches, however, show how little they are disposed to listen to the voice of their honorary chief…

“Jerusalem answered cordially and sympathetically. Patriarch Damianos said that it is unhappily hopeless to think of reunion with Latins or Protestants as long as they go on proselytising in the East. But union with the Anglicans is possible and very desirable… Athens answered that no union is possible, least of all with the Old Catholics, who will not give a plain account of what they do or do not believe. Bucharest said that the only union possible would be the conversion of the Latin and Protestant heretics to the one true Orthodox Church; the Old Catholics are specially hopeless, because they have given up confession and fasting, try to unite with the Anglicans, and do not know what they themselves believe… Belgrade likes the idea of union with the Old Catholics especially… Russia answered at great length and very offensively [sic]. What, said the Holy Russian Synod, is the good of talking about reunion with other bodies when we are in such a state of disorder ourselves? It went on to draw up a list of their domestic quarrels, and hinted plainly that they were all the fault of the Phanar. For the rest, union with the Latins is impossible, because of the unquenchable ambitions of the See of Rome, which long ago led her to her fall. As for the Anglicans, the Church of Russia has always been well disposed towards them: ‘We show every possible condescension to their perplexities, which are only natural after so long a separation. But we must loudly proclaim the truth of our Church and her office as the one and only heir of Christ, and the only ark of salvation left to men by God’s grace.’”[4]

When Patriarch Joachim had received all the replies, he published a second encyclical in 1904 which expressed his own moderate, but firm opinion, both about ecumenism and about the first major step necessary in order to implement ecumenism in a practical way – the change from the traditional Orthodox Julian calendar to the papal Gregorian calendar that was in use throughout the West: “The Church is one, in identity of faith and similarity of habits and customs, in accordance with the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils; and one it must be, and not many and diverse, differing from each other both in dogmas and in the basic principles of Church government…

“This is our opinion concerning the calendar: the Paschalion is venerable and immovable, having been fixed already centuries ago and sanctioned by the constant practice of the Church. In accordance with it, we have been taught to celebrate the radiant Resurrection of the Lord on the first Sunday after the full moon of the spring equinox, or on the Sunday following; and we are not allowed to make innovations in this. And it is mindless and pointless for those who are lying in wait to ambush our immovable Julian calendar by jumping only 13 days, so that our menologia and those of the followers of the other calendar should coincide. On the one hand, there is no compelling reason to omit all these days; such an act has no ecclesiastical or scientific justification. And on the other hand, the coincidence of the menologia will be only temporary, viz., until the year 2100, when there will again begin to be a difference of one day…”[5]

That should have been the end of the matter as far as the Orthodox Church was concerned. However, the tide of western pressure continued to rise. In 1908 the Anglican Bishop of Gibraltar reported that a recent synod of the Anglican Church had decided that the Anglican Churches could baptize the children of Orthodox coming to Anglican priests in places where there were no Orthodox priests, but only on condition that this baptism was not repeated by Orthodox clergy. Then, in 1910, the first “World Missionary Conference” was convened in Edinburgh. This is considered by some to mark the historical beginning of the ecumenical movement. Its president, John Mott, was the first to introduce the terms “Ecumenism” and “ecumenical” into common currency.[6]

In 1914 a further major step was taken with the convening of the “World Congress for International Friendship through the Churches”. This led to the creation of the “Life and Work” Movement, which later combined with the “Faith and Order” Movement to form the World Council of Churches in 1948. However, the outbreak of the First World War put a temporary halt to these developments…

It was not only the Greeks who were being influenced by Ecumenism. The official service-books of the Russian Church reveal an unclear, ambiguous attitude towards the sacraments of the heretics and schismatics. Thus in the Trebnik, or Book of Needs, we read: “Know this also, that a schismatic baptism, and a heretical one, by those who believe in the Holy Indivisible Trinity, in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church determines to be ultimately acceptable in every way.”

Again, Bulgakov’s Nastol’naia Kniga, or Handbook for Clergy, explains that Roman Catholics, if they have been baptised and confirmed, should be received by the “Third Rite”, that is, renunciation of heresies and repentance. If they have not been confirmed, they must be christmated. They must never be baptised. “Recognising Baptism as a requirement for becoming a member of her, [the Russian Orthodox Church] accepts Jews, Muslims, pagans and those sectarians who distort the fundamental dogmas of the Orthodox Church through Baptism; Protestants are accepted through Chrismation; and those Catholics, Armenians and members of the Anglican Church who have not received Chrismation or Confirmation, and also those who have fallen away from Orthodoxy, she accepts through the Third Rite, through Repentance, repudiation of errors and Communion of the Holy Mysteries.”[7]

The 1903 Epistle of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church to the Patriarch of Constantinople revealed that the Russians were opposed to union with the heretics and were “unchangeably convinced… that our Eastern Orthodox Church, which has inviolably preserved the complete deposit of Christ, is alone at the present time the Oecumenical Church”. “As regards our relations with the two great ramifications of Christianity, the Latins and the Protestants, the Russian Church, together with all the autocephalous Churches, ever prays, awaits, and fervently desires that those who in times of old were children of Mother Church and sheep of the one flock of Christ, but who now have been torn away by the envy of the foe and are wandering astray, ‘should repent and come to the knowledge of the truth’, that they should once more return to the bosom of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, to their one Shepherd. We believe in the sincerity of their faith in the All-Holy and Life-Originating Trinity, and on that account we accept the baptism of both the one and the other. We respect the Apostolic Succession of the Latin hierarchy, and those of their clergy who join our Church we accept in the Orders which they then possess, just as we do in the case of Armenians, Copts, Nestorians and other bodies that have not lost Apostolic Succession. ‘Our heart is enlarged’ (II Corinthians 6.11), and we are ready to do all that is possible in order to promote the establishment upon earth of the unity which we so much desire. But, to our great regret and to the common grief of all true children of the Church, at the present time we are obliged to think, not so much of softening our relations towards Western Christians, and of a love-abounding drawing of their communities into union with us, as of the unwearying and ever-watchful defence of the rational sheep committed to our charge from unceasing attacks and multiform seducements on the part of the Latins and the Protestants.”[8]

In general, it is hard to disagree with Andrew Psarev that “by the time of the Russian Revolution of 1917, Russian theological thought regarding non-Orthodox Christians paralleled the position of Blessed Augustine, which stated that a baptism performed by the non-Orthodox in the name of the Holy Trinity is legitimate, given that it comes from the Lord Himself; however, for as long as the sin of schism from the Orthodox Church is not overcome, this sacrament does not provide salvation for the non-Orthodox….”[9]

However, a stricter view more in accordance with the Church canons was adopted by Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky). He explained that the refusal to rebaptise or reordain a heretic did not entail the belief that the heretic was inside the Church. It was rather an acceptance that the form of these rites was correct and did not have to be repeated; so that this form became as it were a cup receiving the grace that is imparted only in the Orthodox Church.

Unfortunately, however, this widespread practice of “economy” in the reception of heretics led to frequent misunderstandings in the ecumenical era that began after the First World War…

The “proto-ecumenism” of the Russian Church in this period was influenced by the fact that the tsars were compelled by purely political considerations to transgress the Church canons regarding prayer with heretics. For as the Russian empire had expanded over the centuries, so had the number of subjects of other faiths than Orthodox Christianity, to the extent that by the late imperial period, as Igor Smolich put it, it was no longer a “confessionally united kingdom”, but an “interconfessional empire”. And so, for example, Tsar Nicholas II became the godfather of the future King Edward VIII at his Anglican baptism. Again, as Archimandrite Macarius (Veretennikov) writes, “Tsar Alexander III… visited Buddhist temples and attended their services; [and] Tsar Nicholas II also (for example, during the world war) visited Catholic churches, Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques, attended their services, and kissed the Catholic cross. From a purely ecclesiastical-formal point of view the Orthodox tsar should not have done that, but as the head of a super-confessional empire, as emperor he was forced to it.”[10]

These ecumenist leanings of the Orthodox Church in the early twentieth century did not end with the First World War and the Russian revolution. In 1920 the Ecumenical Patriarchate issued a notorious encyclical in which it called the Catholics and Protestants brothers in the faith and “co-heirs” with the Orthodox of the blessings of Christ. Less well-known is the fact that the Russian Church, too, appeared set on an ecumenist course.

Thus towards the end of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, on August 16, 1918, a declaration was made regarding the opening of a department for the reunification of the Christian Churches: “The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, which has been gathered and is working in conditions that are so exceptionally difficult for the whole Christian Church, when the waves of unbelief and atheism threaten the very existence of the Christian Church, would take upon itself a great responsibility before history if it did not raise the question of the unification of the Christian Churches and did not give this question a fitting direction at the moment when not only one Christian confession, but the whole of Christianity is threatened by huge dangers on the part of unbelief and atheism.

“The task of the department is to prepare material for a decision of the present Council on this question and on the further development of the matter in the inter-Council period…”[11]

On September 20, the last, 170^th session of the Council, the project for a commission on the reunification of the Churches was reviewed and confirmed by the Council. The president of the department on the unification of the Churches, Archbishop Eudocimus (Meschersky) of the Aleut Islands, said: “I am very sad that the report has come at such a difficult time, when the hours of our sacred union in this chamber are coming to an end, and when at the end of work my thoughts are becoming confused and I cannot report to you everything that I could tell you. From our point of view, the Council should have directed its attention at this question long ago. If the Church is alive, then we can remain in the narrow limits she has existed in up to now. If we have no courage to preach beyond the bounds of our fatherland, then we must hear the voice coming from there to us. I have in mind the voice of the Anglo-American Episcopalian Churches, who sincerely and insistently seek union or rapprochement, and do not find any insurmountable obstacles on the path to the indicated end. Considering the union of the Christian Churches to be especially desirable in the period of intense struggle with unbelief, crude materialism and moral barbarism that we are experiencing now, the department suggests to the Sacred Council that it adopt the following resolution:

“ ‘1. The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, joyfully beholding the sincere strivings of the Old Catholics and Anglicans for union with the Orthodox Church on the basis of the teaching and traditions of the Ancient-Catholic Church, blesses the labours and endeavours of the people who work to find paths towards union with the named friendly Churches.

“‘2. The Council directs the Holy Synod to organize a permanent Commission attached to the Holy Synod with branches in Russia and abroad for the further study of the Old Catholic and Anglican questions, to explicate by means of relations with the Old Catholics and Anglicans the difficulties that lie on the path to union, and possible aids to the speedy attainment of the final end.’”

The decisions of the Council of a theological or dogmatic significance were subject to confirmation by a special assembly of bishops. At the last such assembly, on September 22, 1918, this decision was not reviewed. It is possible that for that reason the “Resolution regarding the unification of the Churches” did not enter the official “Collection of the Decrees and Resolutions of the Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church of 1917-1918”.[12] There may have been a deeper, providential reason: that this Resolution was not pleasing to God, in that it threatened to open the doors of the Russian Church to the heresy of ecumenism, of which the Anglicans were the leaders, at precisely the moment of her greatest weakness…

[1] Simon Caldwell, “Protestants aren’t proper Christians, says Pope”, The Daily Mail (London), July 11, 2007.

[2] Adrian Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, London: Catholic Truth Society, 1920, pp. 342-345.

(3] Ekklesiastiki Alitheia (Ecclesiastical Truth), 1920; in Monk Pavlos, Neoimerologitismos Oikoumenismos (Newcalendarism Ecumenism), Athens, 1982, pp. 17-19 (in Greek).

[4] Fortescue, op. cit., pp. 345-347. See also Eleutherios Goutzides, Ekklesiologika Themata (Ecclesiological Themes), Athens, 1980, vol. I, pp. 64-67 (in Greek).

[5] Agios Agathangelos Esphigmenites (St. Agathangelos of Esphigmenou), № 124, March-April, 1990, pp. 17-19 (in Greek).

This was followed by a further bout of infighting among the hierarchs. Thus Fortescue continues: “So far then Lord Joachim III has shown himself a wise and admirable Patriarch. Alas! He has one fault, and that is an unpardonable one. He has already reigned five years, and the rival parties think it is quite time for him to retire, so as to give their favourites another chance. Already the opposition to him in his synod has declared itself. In January, 1905, there was a scene. Lord Prokopios of Durazzo led the anti-Joachimite side, and in a long speech attacked a number of the Patriarch’s actions. ‘Holy man of Durazzo,’ said Joachim angrily, ‘thou hast learnt thy lesson well. These are the plots brewed in the conventicles of the holy man of Ephesus.’ ‘All holy one,’ said Joachim of Ephesus, ‘there are no conventicles held in my house.’ Then he, too, made a list of accusations, and eight metropolitans ranged themselves on his side. The Patriarch tried the old and always hopeless expedient of forbidding Prokopios to attend the meetings of the synod. That only brought matters to a climax. The eight members at once deposed Joachim and telegraphed the news to Petersburg, Bucharest, Athens, Belgrade, &c. Then, as usual, both sides appealed to the Sultan. Abdulhamid once more had the exquisite pleasure of lecturing them all on charity and concord. ‘Patriarch Effendi,’ says he, ‘you are breaking the laws of the Church. You have no right to exclude Prokopios, and you must make it up with the eight metropolitans.’ Then he sent for the eight. ‘My metropolitans, what right have you to depose the Patriarch? It is not right. You must make it up with Lord Joachim.’ He further hinted that if the precepts of their own Prophet are not enough to control their passions and to make them live in peace, he would have to refer the matter to the invincible Ottoman Police. Eventually the Minister of Religions, our inimitable friend Abdurrahman, last November, sent a note to Joachim, telling him his duty and the Canons of the Orthodox Church, and exhorting him to be a good Patriarch; but so far the Porte is for him and he still reigns. However, the opposition is by no means dead, and we may hear any day that he has gone the weary way to Chalki once more, and that a new bishop rules over the Great Church.” (op. cit., pp. 347-348)

[6] Monk Pavlos, op. cit., pp. 19-20.

[7] S.V. Bulgakov, Nastol’naia Kniga sviaschenno-tserkovno-sluzhitelej (Handbook for Church Servers), Kharkov, 1900, p. 928 ®. In a footnote Bulgakov writes: “Accepting confirmed Anglicans [and Catholics] by the ‘Third Rite’ could be permitted only under the condition of recognition that the Anglican Church has a completely legitimate hierarchy, truly having preserved the grace of the priesthood in unbroken succession from the Apostles.” In line with this acceptance of Anglican order, Bishop Tikhon of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, the future Martyr-Patriarch, attended the consecration of Reginald Weller as Episcopalian Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin in 1900” (The Living Church, November 17, 1900). In his diary under December 16/29, 1900, Archbishop Nicholas (Kasatkin) of Japan mentions this fact with some annoyance: “Why did Tikhon worm himself in there in a hierarchical mantia?”

With regard to the Syro-Chaldean Nestorians, the position of the Church of Russia was expressed in a Synodal ukaz dated March 17-21, 1898, № 1017, which stated that in accordance with the 95^th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council they were to be received according to the Third Rite, and that their clergy had be received in full ecclesiastical rank, with no re-ordination.

[8] A translation of the whole Epistle is to be found in Athelstan Riley, Birkbeck and the Russian Church, London: Macmillan, 1917, pp. 247-257.

[9] Andrei Psarev, “The Development of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’s Attitude Toward Other Local Orthodox Churches”, http://www.sobor2006.com/printerfriendly2.php?id=119_0_3_0, p. 5.

[10] “K Voprosu Periodizatsii Istorii Russkoj Tserkvi” (Towards the Question of the Periodicisation of the History of the Russian Church), http://ao.orthodoxy.ru/arch/017/017-smol.htm, pp. 6, 11 (footnote 17) ®.

[11] Monk Benjamin (Gomareteli), Letopis’ tserkovnykh sobytij Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi nachinaia s 1917 goda (Chronicle of Church Events, beginning from 1917), www.zlatoust.ws/letopis.htm, p. 21 ®.

[12] Sviataia Rus’ (Holy Rus’), 2003; Monk Benjamin, op. cit., pp. 23-24.

* * *

WE MUST MAKE CHRIST OUR PRIMARY GOAL!

We must make Christ our primary goal; for on those who choose Him He confers the Kingdom of Heaven. This means that in this present life we must rise spiritually above all things, subjecting them all to Him. We must rule not only over external things but also over the body, through our nonattachment to it, and over death, through the courage of our faith; then in the life to come we shall reign in our bodies externally with Christ through the grace of the resurrection. Death comes both to the righteous and to the sinner, but there is a great difference. As mortals both die, and there is nothing extraordinary in that, but the one dies without reward and possibly condemned; the other is blessed in this world and in the next.

What is the point of amassing riches? Despite his unwillingness, the seeming possessor will have to surrender them, not just at the moment of his death, but often before this, with much shame, tribulation and pain. Wealth breeds innumerable trials – fear, anxiety, and constant worry and troubles sought and unsought – and yet many have endured even death for its sake. But God’s holy commandment saves every man from all this and gives him complete freedom from anxiety and fear; often, indeed, it confers inexpressible delight on those who deliberately choose to rid themselves of possessions. For what brings more delight than to achieve dispassion and no longer to be under the sway of anger or the desire for worldly things? Regarding as nothing the things that most people value and rising above them, we live as in paradise, or rather as in heaven, set free from all constraints through our untroubled devotion to God.

РУССКИЕ ОБЯЗАНЫ ОБЛАДАТЬ МОНОПОЛИЕЙ НА ВЛАСТЬ.

Все неудачи российской политики можно объяснить единственным обстоятельством — игнорированием социальной и культурной роли русского народа. Отрицание этой простой и совершенно очевидной истины ведет к закономерному краху всех политических начинаний, независимо от идеологической окраски конкретных политиков — будь то коммунисты или либералы. Русский народ фактически является государственно и культурно образующим народом. Отрицать данный факт бессмысленно. Именно поэтому народы России говорят на русском языке и политическую власть у нас представляют люди преимущественно русской национальности. С этим ничего нельзя поделать. Это совершенно естественно. Так сложилось исторически, и игнорировать данный факт все равно, что выступать против истории. Если бы подобную роль в истории сыграли, например, татары, то сегодня народы России говорили бы на татарском языке, и мы жили бы, пожалуй, в другой стране, как по названию, так и по своей культуре. Но эту историческую роль выполнил русский народ. Так распорядился Бог, и возражать против этого могут только люди тенденциозно настроенные.

Отсюда следует, что процветание России — как творения прежде всего русского народа — целиком зависит от того, в каком состоянии находится сам русский народ. Состояние Российской государственности всегда будет адекватно состоянию русского народа. Данное положение можно принять за аксиому. Чем плачевней состояние русского народа, тем плачевней состояние Российской государственности, и наоборот.

Какие выводы из указанной аксиомы должен сделать любой здравомыслящий политик? Только один — неуклонно поддерживать здоровье и процветание русской нации, используя здравую формулу: «что хорошо для русских, то хорошо для России». Здесь даже нет необходимости апеллировать к моральному долгу, совести, к этим очень редким в наше время факторам. Достаточно лишь трезвого, здорового прагматизма. Если российские политики всерьез намерены укреплять государственность, им необходимо уделять всестороннее внимание положению русской нации. Если же они всячески девальвируют русский народ или не придают значение его положению в стране, то из этого можно заключить следующее: либо такие политики сознательно разваливают Российское государство, либо по недомыслию рубят сук, на котором сидят.

Что же мы имеем в реальности. Давайте задумаемся, почему когда-то так мало продержался Советский Союз, почему он рухнул так неожиданно? Только лишь из-за вражеской агентуры и пресловутой «пятой колонны»? Ответ тут совершенно ясен. Советский Союз был непрочен в своих основаниях. Виной всему — нездоровая и неразумная национальная политика большевиков, которые сознательно поставили русскую нацию в положение донора. Иначе говоря, процветание страны достигалось за счет высасывания жизненных сил из русского народа. Это был политический нонсенс, вопиющее противоречие большевистской государственности. Результат не замедлил себя ждать: вымотанный энергетически русский народ не смог справиться с возложенной на него государственной и культурной функцией, которую он продолжал выполнять в силу исторической преемственности. Таким образом, большевики, истощая из-за своей бездумной политики русскую нацию, сами привели к краху советское государство.

Сегодня положение дел практически не изменилось. Нынешняя власть один к одному воспроизводит национальную политику большевиков, что, безусловно, может привести к схожим результатам — на этот раз к развалу России. В этом плане некоторые потуги на укрепление Российской государственности, которые нам демонстрирует режим Путина, ни к чему не приведут. Причина все та же — неприкрытый, демонстративный «интернационализм» правящей власти, вновь основывающей свою политику на ложном и опровергнутом самой историей теоретическом фундаменте. Ошибочно полагая, что Россия, как «многонациональная» страна, требует одинакового отношения ко всем составляющим ее народам, они сознательно делают «великодушные» жесты и всевозможные реверансы по адресу национальных меньшинств и их местных князьков. При этом, как мы понимаем, жизненные интересы русской нации переносятся ими на второй план. Так вот, это глупо и преступно не только потому, что русский народ составляет подавляющее большинство по своей численности. Это глупо также еще и потому, что именно на русских де факто лежит все бремя государственной ответственности. И в таком случае ослаблять русскую нацию ради самомнения горстки нацменов значит сеять семена нестабильности и краха. Поэтому если российские президент и его сторонники всерьез думают о сохранении государственности, о стабильности, процветании и порядке, они должны основательно переосмыслить свой навязчивый интернационализм.

Особенно об этом ин нужно задуматься сейчас. Они должны понять, что сегодня их участь и участь страны зависят не от восторгов российских нацменов, не от взаимности ПАСЕ или американского конгресса, а исключительно от положения русской нации. Русская нация — фактор объективный. С ним можно не считаться, но отменить его невозможно. Бесконечные уступки нацменам в ущерб интересам русских всегда осуществляются не ради трезвых практических целей, а исключительно ради глупых химер и иллюзий. Здравомыслящий политик никогда не позволит себе такую роскошь.

Разумеется, среди тех, кто ставит под сомнение исключительное положение русской нации (ссылаясь на все ту же «многонациональность» России), есть и откровенные прислужники врагов Российской государственности. Сюда относятся не только западные политики, в чьи планы никак не входит существование сильной России. В эту категорию входят и всевозможные национальные князьки, жаждущие абсолютного господства в своих вотчинах, а потому кровно заинтересованных в ослаблении Российского центра. Как раз на них работают различные купленные идеологи, пытающиеся нам внушить, что русские, дескать, не должны иметь монополии на власть. Эту немудреную формулу, как правило, подкрепляют дежурными морализаторскими сентенциями об «уважении прав народов», о справедливости, о недопущении «национальной розни» и т.д. Остается только сожалеть, что с подобной дешевой и неумной философией все еще продолжает считаться большинство достаточно порядочных русских политиков. Они как будто с детства загипнотизированы подобной высокопарной интернационалистской болтовней.