VI.
THE FALL OF COMMUNISM?
1990
- 2000
The sons of foreigners shall build up your
walls,
And their kings shall minister unto you.
Isaiah 60.10
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
sheep’s clothing,
But inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 6.15
Liberation or Deception?
The apparent fall of communism throughout most of the Soviet bloc in
1989-91 raised hopes of a restoration of True Orthodoxy in
Nevertheless, the changes were significant enough to indicate the
beginning of a new era. If we seek for historical parallels, then perhaps the
closest is that presented by the Edict of Milan in 313, when the Emperor St.
Constantine the Great came to an agreement with the pagan emperor Licinius
whereby the persecution of the Christians in the
Russian Orthodox Christians reacted to
these changes in three different ways. The True Orthodox Christians of the
However, the first question that had to be
answered by all sides was: how were the political changes to be evaluated? Was
the collective Antichrist really dead? If so, then had the end times,
paradoxically, come to an end? Or was this only a temporary “breathing space”
in which the Antichrist was preparing a new, subtler, and more deadly
onslaught?
There were certainly important benefits to
be gained from democratisation. Thus the fall of communism came not a moment
too soon for the beleaguered
On the other hand, only a minority of Russians used this freedom to seek
the truth that makes one truly, spiritually free. And so if the fall of
communism in 1989-91 was a liberation, it was a liberation strangely lacking in
joy. Orthodoxy was restored neither to the state nor to the official church,
and the masses of the people remained unconverted. Ten years later, a priest of
the Moscow Patriarchate could claim that “the regeneration of ecclesiastical
life has become a clear manifestation of the miraculous transfiguration of
As time passed, the corrupting and divisive effects of Russian
“democracy” became more and more evident. Pornography and crime of all kinds
increased dramatically; and in the opinion of many it was now more difficult to
bring up children in true Christian piety than it had been in the Soviet
period. The general level of culture also declined; and the freedom given to
religion turned out to be more to the advantage of all kinds of sects and false
religions than to True Orthodoxy.
Of course, “all things work together for good for those who love God” (Romans
8.28). And however dispiriting the 1990s were, they did enable important
lessons to be learned for those who wanted to learn them. Among the most
important of these was the realisation that “communism” and “democracy” were
not simple opposites, the one evil and the other good. As long as Russians
denounced communism but praised democracy, without seeing the close historical
and philosophical kinship between these two western heresies, it was impossible
for them to understand the real roots of the revolution and therefore return to
True Orthodoxy. But already early in the 1990s Orthodox Russians were beginning
to see the evil and antichristian nature, not only of the October Bolshevik, but
also of the February Democratic revolution…
That the return of democracy would not bring with it a real cleansing of
political life was evident when it became clear that none of the communist
persecutors of the previous seventy years, throughout the whole vast
Meanwhile, Freemasonry, which had been banned at the Fourth Communist
International in
“
“M.W. Bro. Dergachev writes: ‘Most of the Brothers have graduated from
the Universities. Among them there are scientists, journalists, businessmen,
bankers, officers of the Army, Navy, policemen, engineers, writers, producers
and lawyers.’
“These four Regular Daughter Lodges of the Grand Lodge Nationale
Française formed the Grand Lodge of Russia on
It is known that Boris Yeltsin became a Freemason in 1992 (as announced
in Pravda), and KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin became one in
In the midst of this disorganized anarchy
filled with crime and false religion, many began to long nostalgically for the
“organized anarchy” of the Soviet period, considering that the cheapness of
Soviet sausages somehow outweighed the destruction of tens of millions of souls
through Soviet violence and atheist propaganda. Like the children of
True, they felt the need for such a
leader; and if many still longed for the return of a Stalin, there were many
who preferred the image of Tsar Nicholas II, whose ever-increasing veneration
among the people (if not among the hierarchs) was one of the most encouraging
phenomena of the 1990s. But veneration for the pre-revolutionary tsars was not
going to about the appearance of a post-revolutionary tsar unless that
veneration was combined with repentance. Few understood that the people
had to become worthy of such a tsar by a return to the
KGB
Agents in Cassocks
In June, 1990, the Hierarchical Council of
the MP, missing a golden historical opportunity, elected Metropolitan Alexis
(Ridiger) as the new patriarch. This was the man whom the Furov report of 1970
had called the most pro-Soviet of all the bishops, a KGB agent since 1958 who
had been prepared to report to the KGB even on his own patriarch! On being
elected, he immediately, on July 4/17, 1990, the day of the martyrdom of Tsar
Nicholas II, announced publicly that he was praying for the preservation of the
communist party!
Of
course, after that gaffe, being a clever man, “Patriarch” Alexis quickly
recovered his balance, his sense of which way the wind was blowing; and there
was no further overt support of the communists. True, he did attach his
signature, in December, 1990, to a letter by 53 well-known political, academic
and literary figures who urged Gorbachev to take urgent measures to deal with
the state of crisis in the country, speaking of “… the destructive dictatorship
of people who are shameless in their striving to take ownership of territory,
resources, the intellectual wealth and labour forces of the country whose name
is the USSR”.[7]
But the patriarch quickly disavowed his signature; and a few weeks later, after
the deaths in
Still more striking was his apparent rejection of Sergianism. Thus in an
interview granted to Izvestia on June 6 he said: “This year has freed us
from the state’s supervision. Now we have the moral right to say that the
Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius has disappeared into the past and no longer
guides us… The metropolitan cooperated with criminal usurpers. This was his
tragedy…. Today we can say that falsehood is interspersed in his Declaration,
which stated as its goal ‘placing the Church in a proper relationship with the
Soviet government’. But this relationship – and in the Declaration it is
clearly defined as being the submission of the Church to the interests of
governmental politics – is exactly that which is incorrect from the point of
view of the Church… Of the people, then, to whom these compromises, silence,
forced passivity or expressions of loyalty that were permitted by the Church
leadership in those days, have caused pain – of these people, not only before
God, but also before them, I ask forgiveness, understanding and prayers.”[9]
And yet, in an interview given to Komsomolskaia Pravda only two
months earlier, he had said: “The most important thing for the Church is to
preserve itself for the people, so that they should be able to have access to
the Chalice of Christ, to the Chalice of Communion… There is a rule when a
Christian has to take on himself a sin in order to avoid a greater sin… There
are situations in which a person, a Christian must sacrifice his personal
purity, his personal perfection, so as to defend something greater… Thus in
relation to Metropolitan Sergius and his successors in the leadership of the
Church under Soviet power, they had to tell lies, they had to say that
everything was normal with us. And yet the Church was being persecuted.
Declarations of political loyalty were being made. The fullness of Christian
life, charity, almsgiving, the Reigning icon of the Mother of God were also
renounced. Compromises were made.”
In other words, Sergianism, though sinful, was justified. It may have
“disappeared into the past”, but if similar circumstances arise again, the “sacrifice”
of personal purity can and should be made again!…[10]
The patriarch showed that the poison of Sergianism was in him still
during the attempted coup of August, 1991. When the Russian
vice-president, Alexander Rutskoy, approached him on the morning of the 19th,
the patriarch, like several other leading political figures, pleaded “illness”
and refused to see him. When he eventually did issue a declaration – on the
evening of the 20th, and again in the early hours of the 21st
– the impression made was, in Fr. Gleb Yakunin’s words, “rather weak”.[11] He
called on all sides to avoid bloodshed, but did not specifically condemn the
plotters.
As Jane Ellis comments: “Though Patriarch Alexis II issued statements
during the coup, they were bland and unspecific, and he was widely
thought to have waited to see which way the wind was blowing before committing
himself to issuing them. It was rather the priests in the White House – the
Russian Parliament building – itself, such as the veteran campaigner for religious
freedom, Fr. Gleb Yakunin, as well as the Christians among those manning the
barricades outside, who helped to overthrow the Communist Party, the KGB and
the Soviet system.”[12]
It was not until Wednesday morning that the patriarch sent his representative,
Deacon Andrew Kurayev, to the Russian parliament building, by which time
several dissident priests were already established there. And it was two
priests of the Russian Church Abroad, Fr. Nicholas Artemov from
By these actions the patriarch appeared to have secured his position
vis-à-vis Yeltsin’s government, and on August 27, Yeltsin attended a
memorial service in the Assumption cathedral of the Kremlin, at which the
patriarch hailed the failure of the coup, saying that “the wrath of God falls
upon the children of disobedience”.[13] So in
the space of thirteen months, the patriarch had passed from a pro-communist,
anti-democratic to an anti-communist, pro-democratic stance. This lack of
principle should have surprised nobody; for the essence of sergianism, the root
heresy of the Moscow Patriarchate, is adaptation to the world, and to
whatever the world believes and praises.
In September, 1991, in an interview with 30 Dias, the patriarch
said: “A church that has millions of faithful cannot go into the catacombs. The
hierarchy of the church has taken the sin on their souls: the sin of silence
and of lying for the good of the people in order that they not be completely
removed from real life. In the government of the diocese and as head of the
negotiations for the patriarchate of
This is closer to self-justification than repentance (and was in any
case contradicted by later statements). It is similar to the statement of
Metropolitan Nicholas (Corneanu) of Banat of the Romanian Patriarchate, who
confessed that he had collaborated with the Securitate, the Romanian
equivalent of the KGB, and had defrocked the priest Fr. Calciu for false
political reasons, but nevertheless declared that if he had not made such
compromises he would have been forced to abandon his post, “which in the
conditions of the time would not have been good for the Church”. In other
words, as Vladimir Kozyrev writes: “It means: ‘I dishonoured the Church and my
Episcopal responsibility, I betrayed those whom I had to protect, I scandalized
my flock. But all this I had to do for the good of the Church!’”[15]
In another interview in 1997 Patriarch Alexis said, referring to the
Church in the time of Patriarch Tikhon: “The Church could not, did not have the
right, to go into the catacombs. She remained together with the people and
drank to the dregs the cup of sufferings that fell to its lot.”[16] Patriarch Alexis here forgot to mention that
Patriarch Tikhon specifically blessed Michael Zhizhilenko, the future
Hieromartyr Maximus of
On
After the failure of the putsch articles began to appear
revealing the links of the Church hierarchy with the KGB. Rattled, the
patriarch wrote to Frs. Gleb Yakunin and George Edelstein that their articles
were “full of the spirit of unscrupulous blasphemy against the Church.”[18]
One of the biggest fruits of glasnost’ – which did not, however,
lead to a real ecclesiastical perestroika – was the confirmation in
January, 1992, by a Commission of the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Soviet
investigating the causes and circumstances of the 1991 putsch, that for
several decades at least the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate had been KGB
agents. Members of the commission - L. Ponomarev, V. Polosin and Fr. Gleb
Yakunin – obtained access to the records of the fourth, Church department of
the KGB’s Fifth Directorate, and revealed that Metropolitans Juvenal of Krutitsa,
Pitirim of Volokolamsk, Philaret of Kiev and Philaret of Minsk were all KGB
agents, with the codenames “Adamant”, “Abbat”, “Antonov” and “Ostrovsky”.
This news was not, unexpected. In 1989 Kharchev, Chairman of the Council
for Religious Affairs, confirmed that the Russian Orthodox Church was
rigorously controlled by the Central Committee of the Communist Party,
especially its Ideological Department, and by the KGB.[19] Again,
Victor Sheimov, a former KGB major with responsibilities for upgrading the
KGB’s communications security system until his defection in 1980, described the
Fifth Directorate as being “responsible for suppressing ideological dissent,
running the Soviet Orthodox Church and laying the groundwork for the First
Chief Directorate’s subversive promotion of favourable opinion about the
country’s position and policy.”[20] One of
Sheimov’s jobs was to draft agents to infiltrate the “Soviet Orthodox Church”.
Again, in 1992 a former KGB agent, A. Shushpanov, described his experiences
working in the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department of External Ecclesiastical
Relations. He said that most of the people working there were in fact KGB
agents.[21]
But it was the Commission’s report on March 6 that contained the most
shocking revelations: “KGB agents, using such aliases as Sviatoslav, Adamant,
Mikhailov, Nesterovich, Ognev and others, made trips abroad, organised by the
Russian Orthodox Department of External Relations [which was headed by
Metropolitan Cyril (Gundiaev)], performing missions assigned to them by the
leadership of the KGB. The nature of their missions shows that this department
was inseparably linked with the state and that it had emerged as a covert
centre of KGB agents among the faithful.” “The Commission draws the attention
of the Russian Orthodox Church leadership to the fact that the Central
Committee of the CPSU and KGB agencies have used a number of church bodies for
their purposes by recruiting and planting KGB agents. Such deep infiltration by
intelligence service agents into religious associations poses a serious threat
to society and the State. Agenceis that are called upon to ensure State
security can thus exert uncontrolled impact on religious associations numbering
millions of members, and through them on the situation at home and abroad.”[22]
The findings of the Commision included:- (i) the words of the head of
the KGB Yury Andropov to the Central Committee sometime in the 1970s: “The
organs of state security keep the contacts of the Vatican with the Russian
Orthodox Church under control…”; (ii) “At the 6th General Assembly
of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver, the religious delegation from
the USSR contained 47 (!) agents of the KGB, including religious authorities,
clergy and technical personnel” (July, 1983); (iii) “The most important were
the journeys of agents ‘Antonov’, ‘Ostrovsky’ and ‘Adamant’ to Italy for
conversations with the Pope of Rome on the question of further relations
between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church, and in particular regarding
the problems of the uniates” (1989).[23]
The Commission also discovered, but did not publish the fact that the
patriarch himself was an agent with the codename “Drozdov”. This was not made
public because, writes Fen Montaigne, “members of the parliamentary commission
had told the patriarch that they would not name him as an agent if he began
cleaning house in the church and acknowledging the breadth of cooperation
between the church and the KGB. ‘So far, we have kept silence because we wanted
to give the patriarch a chance,’ said Alexander Nezhny, a journalist who said
his comparison of the archives and church bulletins convinced him that Alexis
II is indeed ‘Drozdov’.”[24]
Later investigations confirmed the fact. Thus on March 18, 1996 the
Estonian newspaper Postimees published the following KGB report from the
Estonian SSR: “Agent ‘Drozdov’, born in 1929, a priest of the Orthodox Church,
has a higher education, a degree in theology, speaks Russian and Estonian
perfectly, and some limited German. He enlisted on
Nevertheless,
what had been revealed was so shocking that the parliamentary commission was
closed down by Ruslan Khasbulatov, the President of the Supreme Soviet, at the
insistence, according to Ponomarev, of Patriarch Alexis and the head of the
KGB, E. Primakov.
One of the commission’s members, Fr. Gleb Yakunin, “was accused of
betraying state secrets to the
“’If the Church is not cleansed of the taint of the spy and informer, it
cannot be reborn. Unfortunately, only one archbishop – Archbishop Chrysostom of
“The most prominent agents of the past include DROZDOV – the only one of
the churchmen to be officially honoured with an award by the KGB of the
“The codenames I discovered in the archives of the KGB belong to the top
hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate.”[26]
In April, 1992, Archbishop Chrysostom of
In the same year he declared to the Council of Bishops of the MP: “In
our Church there are genuine members of the KGB, who have made head-spinning
careers; for example, Metropolitan Methodius of Voronezh. He is a KGB officer
[code-name PAUL], an atheist, a liar, who is constantly advised by the KGB. The
Synod was unanimously against such a bishop, but we had to take upon us such a
sin. And then what a rise he had!”[28]
At the same Council, a commission of eight MP bishops headed by Bishop
Alexander of
Writing in 1995, John Dunlop concluded that “the overwhelming majority
of the current one hundred and nineteen bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate were
ordained to the episcopacy prior to August of 1991. This suggests that each of
these bishops was carefully screened and vetted by both the ideological
apparatus of the Communist Party and by the KGB.”[30]
The
MP in the 1990s
With the KGB firmly back in the saddle in the MP, it is not surprising
that the corruption continued unchecked. One anonymous member of the Moscow
Patriarchate analyzed the situation as follows: “In spite of the liberation and
a certain revival of Church life in recent years, her real situation has not
really changed markedly for the better. What is the use of an increasing number
of baptisms if out of a thousand baptized scarcely one or two can be found who
want to become Christians in our sense of the word, but practically everyone
considers themselves to be ‘believers’ (in whom?)? What is the use of a growing
number of publications of spiritual literature when clearly anti-church and
heretical literature is spread at a far faster rate? What is the use of mass
weddings when the number of abortions and divorces grows much faster, not to
speak of every other kind of sexual immorality? What is the use of transmitting
Divine services on television when the great majority of observors of these
programmes do not themselves want to pray in church, preferring to play the role
of ‘fans’, while those who seriously live the life of the Church hardly watch
television? What is the point of teaching the Law of God in schools when all
the rest of the school programme remains atheist and a pupil of the sixth class
‘goes through’ the Bible stories in the section of the literature course
entitled ‘fairytales’, and takes exams on the history of the ancient world and
the sections on Christianity in accordance with exactly the same textbook as
fifteen years ago? And even if there is a serious attitude towards the Law of
God in the school, what is the point of it if the child’s atheist parents do
not teach him Church life, confession and the sacraments, prayer and fasting?
Will such learning profit him?
“We are not talking in detail here about the de facto fall of
Orthodoxy in West Ukraine…, about the rapid growth and spread of Latinism, of
Protestantism, of the special heresy that strives to unite Christianity with
Judaism, of Krishnaism, ‘non-traditional medicine’, astrology, sorcery and the
most various kinds of satanism. We are also not talking here about the open
campaign of moral corruption through all the means of mass communication, which
are almost exclusively in the hands of the enemies of the Church and the
fatherland.
“The main thing is that our Church [the MP]
has practically renounced the ideals of Holy Russia and Orthodox Statehood as
moral-dogmatic standards, but has become entwined in the rabble of democratic
politicians, and while breathing a sigh of nostalgia for the Bolsheviks has
begun in the persons of her hierarchs to bless all the initiatives of the new
power. This has led to our present position of being unable to resist this
concentrated and deeply positioned attack of the enemy forces against the Church,
which, moreover, has to a significant degree allowed the enemy to enter the
Church and sow his tares in her midst. For example, how can we resist the
widely disseminated teaching of Protopriest Alexander Men, who departed far
from Orthodoxy, but which has been condemned as a heresy by nobody? Only one
small, albeit very well written brochure has appeared in a very limited
edition. In the conditions of democracy everyone receives blessings for
everything, and in the first place those who do evil are blessed for their evil
activities. And we have to look on with horror as the flock of Christ is
scattered by wolves before our very eyes…”[32]
Archpriest Lev Lebedev, a convert from the MP to ROCOR, was still more
trenchant in his criticism: “Only after… 1990, in a situation and atmosphere of
relative civil liberty, and especially after the staged supposed
‘putsch’ of the dissolution of the CPSU in 1991 and even of Soviet power in
1993 (!), did the following become completely clear. The ‘Patriarchate’
in the former Sovdepia was not at all an unfree, enslaved ‘Church of
silence’, as it was sometimes called. Its hierarchy had already for a very
long time, not at all under coercion, not under pressure, but completely
voluntarily and from the soul, been attempting to please the Soviet regime.
They were not the ‘new martyrs’ for the Church that they presented themselves
as to their flock, and which is how some observers from outside were inclined
to see them. The point is that the episcopate of the ‘patriarchate’ constructed
by Sergius had more and more with every succeeding generation (replenishment) truly
fraternised and become friendly with the partocrats, the nomenklatura
of the CPSS, to the extent that the nomenklatura degenerated morally and
ideologically! So that the bishops of the ‘patriarchate’, and especially the
highest ones, that is, those who held real power in the Church, became
one with the partocrats in spirit, in their manner of thinking, even, to
a large extent, in their language (the use of stock phrases from the newspapers
in their sermons and speeches had been noted long before). If there is anything
more despicable in the world than the Soviet ‘cultural intelligentsia’, then it
can only be the episcopate of the
“Like all smart dealers ‘of this world’, the bishops of ‘the
patriarchate’ are no longer able to maintain real ecclesiastical brotherhood
and friendship in their relationships with each other. Jealousy, envy, enmity,
intrigues and denunciations against each other have become the norm of
their mutual relations. This has been transmitted to the clergy. If there are
several priests in a parish, there can never be true friendship between them;
jealousy and envy have become the norm. There is no point even speaking about Christian
love among the clergy.
“’The fish begins to rot from the head.’ This condition and behaviour of
the hierarchy of the Moscow ‘patriarchate’ has been transferred, not without
opposition, to the lower levels – through the middle clergy to the people, the
flock, where it received the most powerful and long-lasting resistance. But
with time even the flock ‘gave in’. In the mass of the Christians of the
churches of the ‘patriarchate’, mutual love has become extremely scarce;
more and more its place has been taken by jealousy, envy and the most terrible
bitterness against each other (especially on the kliroses and at the money
‘desks’), a bitterness such as you will not find in secular establishments! In
the last 10 years this has reached the level of pathological fear of each other
in connection with suspicions of witchcraft! Many in the churches now
fear to receive a prosphora or boiled wheat or a candle from each other… There
where faith has withered there have grown up, like poisonous mushrooms, the
most varied superstitions! And, you know, they really do practise witchcraft!
And not only in the villages, but also in the cities, moreover completely
educated people! They learn from each other methods of ‘black’ and ‘white’
magic, spells, ‘charms’ and ‘anti-charms’. Sorcerers send their ‘patients’ to
certain priests, and these in their turn – to sorcerers. Healer-sorcerers have
appeared in the midst of the clergy… They go to him in droves, not only from
the diocese, but also from other regions. The profit from it is very large.
Batiushka generously shares it with the bishop, and for that reason the
bishop does not touch him, in spite of the outrage of his brethren and some of
the believers!… Suffering from spells and the evil eye have become very
widespread illnesses amongst parishioners. Medicine in such cases is useless,
it cannot even establish a diagnosis. And people suffer terribly! You should
see (especially in the countryside) this bewitched, hunched-up, deformed humanity!
And all this is from their own people, as a result of envy and revenge….
“There where hatred has taken the place of love, you can say what you
like, only it is not the
“The quality of faith has changed to an unrecognisable extent. To
put it more bluntly, among people of that social milieu where to this day they
sincerely suppose that an abandoned church is very suitable for a lavatory,
among people of this milieu faith has long ago been turned into some
church-like paganism, where everything comes down to ‘sacrifices’ to
God, so that He may not punish them, or give them something they are asking
for. Among people of a higher cultural level, alongside this a thirst for ‘spiritual
experiences’ is also noticeable. But if there is no grace of the Holy Spirit
and the lofty feelings produced by it, then they are trying to imagine them,
that is, artificially create them. The result is ‘spiritual deception’ in the
form of various levels of exaltation, leading right to psychological and mental
illness of one or another level. So that now among believing intelligenty
the most zealous are always – without fail and necessarily – psychologically sick
people. On this soil especially luxuriant blooms that have flowered in the
‘patriarchate’ have been the manifestations of false ‘eldership’ and the
‘deification’ of young archimandrites by demonised hysterics. In contrast to
St. John of Kronstadt, the archimandrites (igumens, hieromonks and other
‘grace-filled batiushkas’) do not drive such people away from themselves, but
in every way encourage them, sometimes creating out of these female worshippers
veritable bands that morally (and sometimes even physically!) terrorize the
other believers. This terrible phenomenon already has a marked antichristian
character. One of the female worshippers of one such archimandrite very
precisely said: ‘Batiushka is our God!’ What stands behind this is the thirst
to have a ‘living god’, a man-god, whom one can make an idol of in one’s life.
The epoch of the ‘cult of personality’ did not pass in vain. How many hundred
and thousands of souls throughout
“We must note that there were and still are completely honourable people
in the bosom of the ‘patriarchate’, people who have sincerely converted to God.
But they were always in the minority, and now all the more so, becoming all the
time fewer, and they do not have the opportunity to determine Church
life. Left only with their human strength, they can do little, although they
present an at times exemplary model of asceticism and self-denial.
“The phenomena of spiritual deformity, canonical transgressions and
moral sins are possible and, moreover, natural at any time of the
existence of any local Church, insofar as it is a community not of ‘the pure
and sinless’, but precisely of sinful, damaged people. The Church must
therefore be a spiritual hospital for its members, for the flock. If the
Church firmly holds to the Orthodox Faith and the holy canons ‘work’ in it in
relation both to those above, and those below, to everyone (!), then it is a
truly living organism of the Body of Christ, which is given life and raised up
to God by the Holy Spirit. Then the excesses of various apostasies, crimes and
transgressions of the canons in it are just that – excesses, instances
on the background of what is on the whole a normal and correct life.
But if the Church falls away both from the Faith and from the canonical order,
it ceases to be the Body of Christ, that is, the Church, being turned into a
community in which the virtues and correct conditions become occasional exceptions,
while the general background and ‘norm of life’ turns out to be crime,
apostasy and transgression… In such an inverted order of things the Church
situation does not help, but hinders the salvation of those who
trustingly enter it, it simply destroys them. Such, we see, is the situation in
the
Perhaps the aspect of patriarchal life that most clearly demonstrated
its degradation was its attitude to the very heart of all church life – the
sacraments. Ludmilla Perepiolkina writes:
“[Baptism] as a rule is administered through ablution or even
sprinkling, although, as one knows, the threefold immersion of the baptized
into the baptismal font [is the only correct form of baptism and] signifies
Christ’s death and Resurrection on the third day. Therefore a negligent and
needlessly hurried administration of this Mystery becomes an act of sacrilege.
“Both the baptized and their godparents are usually admitted to the
Mystery without any preceding catechisation and testing of faith. As a rule,
godparents remain in absolute ignorance regarding their spiritual obligations
and their responsibility before God for the upbringing of their godchildren.
The godparents attending mass baptisms of the Moscow Patriarchate are mostly
irreligious, often non-Orthodox, or atheists in general…
“Superstitious parents sometimes baptize their children several times
(‘to keep them from becoming ill…’); religious illiteracy accompanies many
other superstitions as well. Lately there have been increased instances of baptizing
and even giving Holy Communion (!) to the dead. These awful phenomena are
caused not only by the ignorance and covetousness of clergymen, but also by the
fact that among the clerics of the Moscow Patriarchate there is an increase in
the number of occultists, wizards, psychics. This is because there are not only
neophytes among those ordained… but also converts from Eastern cults, Yoga,
paganism, occultism and other demonic delusions. Having failed to renounce
their former beliefs, the latter dissolve their ‘Christianity’ in this
contamination. There are ‘priests’ who practise black magic and are a true
horror to their ‘spiritual children’ whom they have enslaved and reduced to
becoming zombies…
“In the city churches of the Moscow Patriarchate Chrismation, which is
administered immediately after Baptism, resembles a production line in a
factory, rather than a Church Mystery. Since at the time of their baptism
people have merely their heads sprinkled with water over the baptismal font,
they have their clothes on. A priest then hastily goes round the long rank of
the newly baptised who stand there in ignorance. Then, at the sacred moment of
Chrismation, requiring a special reverence, when the Holy Spirit is received,
there is a general hurried discarding of superfluous clothing. Not infrequently
a priest may even anoint parts of the body still covered by clothing.
“The following should be noted. Not so long ago a certain degree of
confidence in the Patriarchate’s Chrism was based on the fact that every time
it was sanctified, a part of the Chrism of the previous years had to be added.
Thus, the chrism of the Soviet period must have contained a part of the Chrism
sanctified by the Holy Patriarch Tikhon. However, in the most recent years many
in the Moscow Patriarchate have been confused, and not only because the Chrism
now in use was sanctified by the apostate Patriarch Alexis II (Ridiger). From
many areas of
“The Mystery of Confession and the Mystery of Baptism elicit the most
criticism. Practically everywhere the so-called ‘general confession’ is
performed, which is not stipulated by the Church canons and which was not
permitted even in the Moscow Patriarchate even in the first years after the
Second World war, when there was an acute shortage of clergy. At the present
time many young priests, accustomed to practise an insipid and formalized
‘general confession’, refuse to hear individual confession even if it is a
question of only one or two people (who want to be confessed individually), not
scores of them. A priest only covers the head of a penitent with his
epitrachelion and recites the last short prayer of absolution, or simply makes
the sign of the cross over him in silence. In 10 minutes time scores of people
go through confession in this manner.
“The practice of such ‘remission of sins’ cannot be called anything but
criminal! After all, many people, who for 70 years lived in the militantly
atheist country where sin had become the norm, and who only recently
learned to make the sign of the cross over themselves, often have no idea what
sin is. Thus, the overwhelming majority of women who have undergone abortion do
not know that they are murderers who have committed a mortal sin.[35] The
same happens to other people who seek healing of their soul in the Church, but
do not find it. Is this not the reason why there is such an unprecedented
number of all kinds of sects in post-Soviet
“Through the efforts of Renovationists of
the Moscow Patriarchate, its theological academies and seminaries for years
have been preparing a complete break between the Mysteries of Confession and
Communion, and a rejection of the obligatory Confession before Communion
resulting from such a break.
“The Moscow Patriarchate promotes the conviction that ‘obedience is more
important than prayer and fasting’, than the Canons and Patristic teaching.
This conviction has been turned into a means of the personal dependence and
subjugation of church-going people to pseudo-clergy, pseudo-elders and
pseudo-Patriarch…
“The most profound Mystery of the Church is that of Holy Communion… The
gravest sin of the apostates is the profanation of this Mystery. They turn the
Divine Liturgy, which only true believers are permitted to attend, into a show,
a spectacle for the crowds of tourists and television viewers, and the Holy
Gifts – Christ’s Body and Blood – are given to anybody and at random…
“Besides the corrupting influence which the distortion of the Mystery of
Confession or its rejection has upon Orthodox Christians, this innovation is
instrumental in achieving the ecumenical objective of allowing access to the
Orthodox Mystery of Holy Communion to the non-Orthodox. The resolution of the
Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate concerning admission of Catholics to
Communion in Orthodox Churches in
“When celebrating the Proskomedia and reciting litanies (ektenias),
the ecumenists would commemorate heretics along with the Orthodox in accordance
with their sermon on ‘the church without frontiers’, and during the Great
Entrance of the Divine Liturgy they would replace the words ‘and may the Lord
God remember you all Orthodox Christians in His Kingdom’ by ‘and all
Christians’.
“In 1994 the Bishops’ Council of the MP left practically all matters
concerning communication with the non-Orthodox to the personal discretion of
its bishops and clergy, merely pointing out to them the undesirability of
bewildering their flock.
“The instances of Protestants partaking of Holy Communion, unprecedented,
in the MP, have now become a regular phenomenon, at least in the
As we have seen, Metropolitan Nicodemus of Leningrad was both a KGB
agent and a secret
Another of them may have been Archbishop Theodosius (Protsyuk) of Omsk,
who, according to Perepiolkina, “has not only received legates from the Vatican
and openly concelebrated with them, even the Divine Liturgy, but presented the
well-known Verenfried with an ‘episcopal cross…, thus becoming an
inseparable friend’ of the wealthy Catholic sponsor.
“The practice of offering communion to the heterodox… is reaching
epidemic proportions in the MP. This may be illustrated by the state of affairs
in the
“The ecumenical epidemic has spread to even the remotest areas. In
accordance with the Balamand Agreement [of 1994], the same church buildings are
now being regularly used by representatives of different denominations
(particularly in the
“Ordination… It is generally known that anyone seeking after a high (or
simply well-secured) position in the MP under the Communists had to win, in one
way or another, the special favour of the God-defying regime.
“All this is entirely contrary to the 30th Apostolic Rule
which reads: ‘If any bishop comes into possession of a church office by
employing the secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be
excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.’ (Compare Rule 3 of
the 7th Ecumenical Council.) An unlawful tree cannot produce lawful
fruit. Every year the ranks of the Patriarchate’s clergy have been supplemented
by those ordained in violation of the Church canons: those tainted by simony,
by second marriage, known homosexuals, obviously un-Orthodox and even those
married to sectarians (the wife of a Moscow priest A. Borisov, one of the
leaders of the late Archpriest Men’s group within the Moscow Patriarchate, is a
Pentecostalist who organises her sect’s meetings in his church.)
“Simony flourishes openly in some dioceses. Thus, it is well know that
in
“The Sacrament of Marriage is almost always administered without any
preparation and without prior Confession of the couple to be married. The
determining factor is the payment of a certain sum of money (which in recent years
has increased to two, three and more times the average monthly wage). Contrary
to the rules, several couples are wed at the same time and often on unstated
days and during fasts. Marriages with non-Orthodox and with people of other
faiths are allowed. For instance, some of
“Church prayer is also being profaned by the Patriarchate’s clergy when
they ‘sanctify’ banks, restaurants, casinos, communist banners of the Red Army
and Fleet, as well as buildings used by psychics and ‘healers’. The apostate MP
has entered into a special relationship with the ‘Orthodox’ magicians in white
coats…
“We may also mention the widespread advertising and sale of ‘holy’ water
on the planes of Aeroflot, in shops and restaurants.
“All this, together with ‘funeral services’ for atheists and
non-baptised persons (which an Orthodox clergyman may bring himself to perform
only as a result of losing the fear of God), and a scandalous acceptance by the
hierarchy of the MP (in the person of Metropolitan Pitirim) of a ‘donation’
from the criminal sect ‘Aum Shinri Kyo’ has become the means of replenishing
church funds with dirty money.
“Such actions as the luxurious church ceremonies at the funeral of journalist
List’yev, notorious for his immoral television programs (in particular those
promoting incest), the burial of one of the mafia leaders in the sacred caves
of the Pskov Monastery of the Caves, have become a rather symptomatic
phenomenon in the
“Criminal power has come to replace party power in
“During the long decades of Communist dictatorship an indulgent attitude
to all ‘weaknesses’ and deviations of hierarchs and clergy had become firmly
ingrained in the consciousness of the members of the MP. This justification of
shortcomings was motivated by the alleged ‘captivity’ of the clergy (which from
year to year was becoming increasingly voluntary). At the same time the
episcopate succeeded in enhancing among the laity and clergy a peculiar kind of
Papism (‘The Patriarch is responsible for everything’) and the cult of ‘blessed
ignorance’ which, allegedly, makes one’s salvation easier to achieve. All these
phenomena flourished and became the very essence of the Moscow Patriarchate, as
the years of ‘democratic’ rule have been demonstrating, when discussions about
‘forced’ acts of apostasy… have become meaningless…”[39]
Many Russians, while not blind to the
corruption in the patriarchate, support it for the sake of the Fatherland; for
Russia, they think (correctly), cannot be resurrected without a Church, and the
MP is the only Church that they see (incorrectly) as being able to become the
religion of the State.
However, as Protopriest Lev Lebedev
writes, “fatherland”, “Russia”, “the State” have become idols in today’s
Russia, more important that the true Faith, without which they are worthless:
“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 (
In September, 1990, ecumenism in the MP
and World Orthodoxy in general took a major step forward at Chambésy,
Switzerland, where a Declaration was agreed between a Joint Commission of
Orthodox and Monophysite (called “Oriental Orthodox” in the documents), the
Orthodox and Monophysites being called two “families of churches” (a phrase
unknown to Orthodox ecclesiology).
Paragraph Four of the Declaration said:
“The two families accept that the two natures [of Christ] with their own
energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion,
without change, without division and without separation and that they are
distinguished only in thought (th qewria monh).”
This was already completely unacceptable
from an Orthodox point of view, and represented a heretical, Monophysite
formulation. The two natures and wills of Christ are not distinguishable “only
in thought”, but also in reality. Paragraph Seven also spoke of
the two natures being distinguishable “only in thought”, which implied, as
Ludmilla Perepiolkina points out “an absence of this distinction in reality”.[41]
Paragraph Five stated: “The two families accept that the One Who wills
and acts is always the single Hypostasis of the incarnate Logos”. However, as
Perepiolkina again correctly points out, according to the teaching of St.
Maximus the Confessor,
“the concept of energy (activity) of nature is attributable only to nature as a
whole, and not to the hypostasis. This teaching was affirmed at the Sixth
Ecumenical Council. In the Chambésy Declaration, as it is evident from
Paragraph Five, natural wills and energies in Jesus Christ are attributed to
His Hypostasis. In other words, this Paragraph is a purely Monothelite
formula”.[42]
Paragraph Eight stated: “The two families accept the first three
Ecumenical Councils which form our common heritage. With regard to the four
later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox affirm that, for them,
points one through seven are also the teaching of these four later Councils,
whereas the oriental Orthodox consider this affirmation of the Orthodox like
their own interpretation. In this sense the oriental Orthodox respond
positively to this affirmation.” An unclear statement, about which one thing,
however, is clear: the Monophysites did not commit themselves to
accepting the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils in the way
the Orthodox did, but only “positively responded to their affirmation”, which
meant nothing in dogmatic terms.
Paragraph Nine stated: “In the light of our joint declaration on
Christology and the joint affirmations mentioned above, we now clearly realize
and understand that our two families have always loyally guarded the same and
authentic Christological Orthodox Faith, and have maintained uninterrupted the
apostolic tradition although they may have used the Christological terms in a
different manner. It is that common faith and that continual loyalty to the
apostolic tradition which must be the basis of our unity and communion.”
This was in flat contradiction to 1500 years of Orthodox Tradition. In
this period all the Holy Fathers unambiguously affirmed that the Monophysites
had not “loyally guarded the same and authentic Christological Orthodox
Faith”, and were in fact heretics. But the modern ecumenists claimed that all
the six hundred and thirty holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as
well as all the Fathers of all the succeeding Council that condemned Monophysitism,
were wrong, and the whole controversy was simply based on some linguistic
misunderstandings!
Paragraph Ten of the Declaration stated: “The two families accept that
all the anathemas and the condemnations of the past which kept us divided must
be lifted by the Churches so that the last obstacle to full unity and communion
of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. The two
families accept that the lifting of the anathemas and the condemnations will be
based on the fact that the Councils and the father previously anathematised or
condemned were not heretics.”
So the Seven Ecumenical Councils needed to be amended, said these
“theologians”, and the anathemas against all the Monophysite councils and
fathers, including the notorious heresiarchs Dioscurus, Timothy and Severus,
lifted! This was a clear and explicit rejection of the Faith of the Seven
Ecumenical Councils!
Of course, the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches (with the exception of
Jerusalem) had already implicitly
rejected the Councils and the Fathers by their communion in prayer and the
sacraments with all sorts of heretics, and even pagans, of which the WCC
General Assembly in Canberra in 1991 was perhaps the most extreme example.
Nevertheless, it was a further and important stage to say explicitly that the Ecumenical Councils were wrong, that the Monophysites should not have been condemned, that
they had been Orthodox all these centuries although the Holy Fathers and all
the saints of the Orthodox Church considered them to be heretics. This was not
simply a failure to come up to the standards of the Ecumenical Councils: it was a renunciation of the standards
themselves.
It was therefore with complete
justification that the Holy Synod of the Truth Orthodox Church of Greece under
Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis) issued the following statement in July, 1991:-
“At Chambésy the Orthodox and the
Monophysites agreed that ‘now they have clearly understood that both families
(i.e. the Orthodox and the Monophysites} have always loyally maintained the
same authentic Orthodox Christological Faith and the unbroken continuity of the
Apostolic tradition…’
“… How is it possible to accept as correct
that which has now been understood by twenty-one representatives of the
Patriarchates and
“The Orthodox and the Monophysites agree
that ‘both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils…’ [But]
the Orthodox Church accepts seven Ecumenical Councils. At
Chambésy, at the demand of the Monophysites, the Orthodox delegates
accepted the recognition of the first three; the rest are put aside and
are considered a matter only for the Chalcedonian Orthodox. For the
Monophysites, who are condemned as heretics and anathematised by them, it is
appropriate to oppose these four other Ecumenical Councils. But is it
permissible for men, however modernist they might be, who would be called
Orthodox, and who declare themselves hierarchs and theologians, to limit the
Ecumenical Councils to three? How do they dare? How did they sign such a
grossly treasonous agreement? At least those who signed the false union of
Florence-Ferrara [with Rome], when they returned to the capital and repented,
declared ‘Let our hands be cut off’ and abjured the false union…
“One can only be horrified at the betrayal
of those who signed the agreement at Chambésy. Those who were deposed
and anathematised as heretics by four Ecumenical Councils are now recognized as
‘saints’ and ‘Fathers’ of the innovating Church… Who are they? There is
Dioscorus, whom the Fourth Ecumenical Council anathematised as being of one
mind with the heretic Eutyches… and the rest against whom the Orthodox Church
cries out the Anathema which is read in the hearing of all on the Sunday of
Orthodoxy. Now the modernist Orthodox would honor them in their churches, make
icons of them and light candles to them, asking forgiveness because our Holy
Fathers unjustly condemned them as heretics…
“Let all who signed the agreement at
Chambésy know that they have ceased to be Orthodox, since they are
communicants of the heresy of the Monophysites.
“Those who signed the agreement at
Chambésy did not sign as individuals. Chiefly, they signed as
representatives of their Churches, and their Churches accepted the agreement at
Chambésy…
“Therefore we denounce this new false
union which was signed at Chambésy by the representatives of the
“All who remain disinterested or silent,
and ally themselves with the supporters of the agreement of Chambésy,
have simply embraced Monophysitism and its wrong-thinking ‘Fathers’ Dioscorus,
Severus, Timothy, and the other heretics. Such people have upon their heads the
anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. They are outside the Church, outside of
salvation, and their portion is with that of all the heretics.
“We have spoken.
“Let every… Orthodox faithful person take
up his responsibilities before God and man. ‘Let us stand aright; let us stand
with fear.’”[43]
In spite of this warning, the ecumenist
Orthodox set about putting the Chambésy agreement into practical effect.
Thus on
Chambésy was followed by the Seventh General Assembly of the WCC
in
On
This is a profound error, which was thoroughly exposed – and
anathematized – by the holy Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Galatians. There
is a sense in which the Old Testament law and prophets were not destroyed, but
fulfilled by Christ (Matthew 5.17) – that is, in the sense that He
revealed their inner meaning. But “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to
Christ” (Galatians 3.24), and having found Christ, we follow, not the
law of the Old Testament, but of the New
Testament. Some parts of the old law are still obligatory for Christians – the Ten
Commandments, for example. But even there adjustments need to be made: the
commandment to “keep the sabbath holy”, for example, applies now to Sundays and
Church feast days, not to Saturdays. And the commandments against murder and
adultery are now deepened to become commandments against anger and lust. As for
circumcisions and animal sacrifices and the worship in the
The patriarch continues: “Judaism and Christianity are united by a
spiritual and natural affinity and positive religious interests. We are united
with the Judaists without renouncing Christianity. For this is not contrary to
Christianity, but in the name and for the sake of Christianity. And the
Judaists are united with us also in the name and for the sake of genuine
Judaism.”
Astonishing! Then why have the main persecutors of Orthodox Christianity
for the last two thousand years been the Judaists? And why does the Judaists’
“holy” book, the Talmud, say such terrible things about Christ, the Mother of
God and Christians in general? No: to be united with the Judaists means
precisely to renounce Christianity; it is to be united with Annas and Caiaphas
and Judas and to be separated from Christ and the holy Apostles, Martyrs and
Fathers of the Church.
“We are separated from the Judaists because we are not wholly Christian,
and the Judaists are separated from us because they are not wholly Judaic.
Because full Christianity embraces Judaism and full Judaism is Christianity.”
The patriarch speaks truly about himself when he says he is “not wholly
Christian”. More precisely, he is not Christian at all. For no Christian,
whether “full” or not, can possible embrace Judaism, which is the antithesis of
Christianity. For the Judaists reject every single article of the Nicene Creed
with the possible exception of the first, about God the Father. And yet even
here it cannot be said that the Judaists know God the Father. For “who is a
liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that
denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, hath not the Father”
(I John 2.22-23).
“The hierarchs, clergy and theologians of our Church resolutely and
openly denounce all and sundry manifestations of anti-Semitism and enmity and
pogroms against the Jews.”
The Orthodox Church rejects anti-Semitism, that is, a rejection of the
Jews on the grounds of their race. She also rejects pogroms because pogroms are
murder. But the Church is and will never cease to be anti-Judaist, because Judaism is a lie, the worst of all lies.
“During the notorious Beilis trial,
Archpriest Alexander Glagolev, a professor at the
Much could be said about the Beilis trial, which was indeed “notorious”
– mainly because of the extreme pressure brought to bear upon witnesses by the
Judaists and their supporters, and the extreme inefficiency of the police work.
Beilis was indeed acquitted, but the court established that the victim, Andrew
Yuschinsky, had been the victim of a
ritual murder. The patriarch also ignores the fact that the Orthodox Church has
officially glorified at least one victim of Judaist ritual murder – the Child
Martyr Gabriel, to whom Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky wrote a service.
“We should also mention that many of our theologians and outstanding
religious thinker, such as Vladimir Soloviev, Nicholas Berdiaev, and Father
Sergius Bulgakov, stood up for the Jews. Vladimir Soloviev regarded the defence
of the Jews, from the Christian point of view, to be one of the major tasks of
his life. For him the main question was not whether the Jews were good or bad,
but whether we Christians were good or bad. Much had been done for establishing
a Christian dialogue by our famous religious thinkers of Jewish origina, Semyon
Frank and Lev Shestov.”
It is unfortunate for the patriarch’s argument that the first four
thinkers he mentions here – are all notorious heretics!
“In this difficult but sacred cause for all of us we hope for
understanding and help from our Jewish brothers and sisters. We shall build, by
our joint efforts, a new society – one that is democratic, free, open and just.
It will be a society which no one will want to leave, and in which the Jews
will live confidently and calmly, in an atmosphere of friendship, creative
cooperation and fraternity between the children of our common God – the Father
of all, the God of your and our fathers…”[46]
The
rabbis did not forget the honour paid to them by the patriarch: during the
visit of Alexis II to the
In February, 1992, the president of the Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods,
Sergius Poliakov, declared that the patriarch’s speech to the
In March, 1992, the heads of the Local Orthodox Churches met in
Here a dishonourable deal was being proposed: if you refrain from
proselytising in Orthodox countries, we will not receive converts in western
countries. Of course, this renunciation of proselytism among western heretics
had been implicit in the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s statements since the
encyclical of 1920, and in all the Orthodox leaders’ actions in ecumenical
forums since the 1960s. But it still came as a shock to see the “Orthodox
Church” renouncing the hope of conversion and therefore salvation for hundreds
of millions of westerners. Here the ecumenical “Orthodox” renounced the first
commandment of the Lord to His Church after the Resurrection: “Go and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded
you…” (Matthew 28.19-20).
The communiqué also made threats against “schismatic groups
competing with the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church” (point 3).
Presumably, the True Orthodox were meant. This threat was made clearer when, in
May, a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate together with a detachment
of Athonite police expelled the Russian-American monks of the Skete of the
Prophet Elijah, who did not commemorate the patriarch, from
While these movements towards union with heretics were taking place, the
Ecumenical Patriarch was acting with great tyranny towards his fellow
patriarchs. Thus in July, 1993 a “great and super-perfect (pantelhV) Synod” was called to judge
Patriarch Diodorus and certain of his collaborators for their supposed
interference in the Australian Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and
certain other questions. The main problem was a very valuable property in
The Patriarch of Jerusalem did not in any way agree to the
“super-perfect” Synod’s decision, and was at first resolved to pay no attention
to it. Sadly, however, other voices prevailed, the patriarchate succumbed, the
patriarch relinquished (it is said, in return for a hefty payment) the property
and the exarchate in
In 1994 the delegates of aal the Local Churches except
Although the delegates of the Orthodox Churches signed the Agreement, it
still needed to be ratified by the Synods of each
Patriarch
Bartholomew confirmed his acceptance of the branch theory on
The MP, too, was able to face down its dissidents. In its council in
December, 1994, the patriarchate's participation in the World Council of
Churches was unequivocally endorsed as having been inspired “primarily by
considerations of the good it would do for the Church”. Then a purge of the anti-ecumenist
brotherhoods began[55], and an
amazing decision was made to permit common prayers with heretics with the
blessing of the local bishop![56]
With the death in 1995 of the only anti-ecumenist in the hierarchy,
Metropolitan John (Snychev) of
The patriarch tried to deflect this protest by complaining once more
about Catholic proselytism in
The patriarch’s right hand (his criticism of the Catholics) clearly did
not know what his left hand (his reception of largesse from them) was doing…
ROCOR’s
With the coming of perestroika in
the late 1980s, the idea arose of founding an above-ground Church under the
authority of ROCOR inside
In this correspondence we already see many
of the reasons for the failure of ROCOR’s mission. First, the rejection of the
In March, 1990, ROCOR received its first parish from the MP, that of St.
Constantine the Great in Suzdal under Archimandrite Valentine (Rusantsov), who
had had a quarrel with his ruling bishop.[62]
Valentine was received through a simple phone call by Metropolitan Vitaly, in
spite of the fact that he was an MP clergyman with a very suspicious past.[63]
Bishop Gregory was soon looking to Valentine as a future bishop and the
main organizer of the mission in
In the same month of March, ROCOR issued
the following guidelines for its Church in Russia, to be known as the “Free
Russian Orthodox Church” (FROC): "I. The free Russian Orthodox parishes
are neither an independent nor a
new hierarchal structure; they are in eucharistic communion with and in the jurisdiction of and
subject to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which is headed by its first
hierarch, Metropolitan Vitaly, and
is the preserver of unadulterated Orthodoxy and the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church.
”II. The clergy are not to join in
eucharistic communion with the Moscow
Patriarchate until it renounces the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, until it repents of the
errors which followed this uncanonical
declaration, and removes those ruling bishops who have compromised themselves by uncanonical
and immoral acts, who have been involved
in corruption and the embezzlement of church funds, who have been placed in power through the
interference of the secular authorities,
and who have allowed distortions in the services of the Russian Orthodox Church.
”III. The parishes may not pray for
the government as long as the controlling
and guiding power remains the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which has a
militantly atheistic and anti-Church program. In addition, prayer is allowed for
apostates only during the prayer,
‘that Thou mightest appear to them who have fallen away,’ but not during the proskomedia.
”IV. The reasons for the
establishment of free parishes: The free Russian Orthodox parishes have opened
due to the absolutely paralyzed, unrepentant state of the hierarchy and clergy
of the Moscow Patriarchate, who have fallen away from pure Orthodoxy through
the acceptance of the declaration by Metropolitan Sergius (who usurped the
power of the Church in Russia) in 1927 of loyalty to the militantly atheistic communist Soviet power.
”The main errors of the Moscow
Patriarchate after the declaration of 1927 are as follows:
”1. The excommunication of those
hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laymen who did not accept the declaration,
which was followed by mass terror
and murder of those who did not accept the atheistic government.
”2. The desecration of the memory of
the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors.
”3. The collaboration with the
atheistic government even in the business of closing churches. Devoted
service to the government and public
prayer to strengthen its power, which in turn fights against faith and the Church.
”4. The distortion of the
sacraments, rites, sermon, and carelessness in the spreading of the Word of
God. Refusal to catechize, which has led masses of laypeople into ignorance and a
superficial acceptance of Christianity.
”5. The participation and membership
in the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement, for the
creation of a worldwide "church", that would unite all heresies and
religions.
”6. Submission to secular, atheistic
authorities and allowing them
to rule the inner life of the church even to the extent of direct control, with the ultimate goal
of destroying faith.
”7. The alienation of the hierarchy
and clergy from the flock, and a careless, proud relationship towards the
laypeople in direct violation of
the apostolic injunction to clergy to be an example and not exercise power over others.
”8. The wide-spread moral depravity
and mercenariness among the uncanonical
clergy.
”9. Uncanonical and capricious
transferring of diocesan bishops."[66]
This was a good manifesto. The problem
was: it was not adhered to consistently. And this failure to stick to a
consistent confession of faith in relation to the MP was, together with
personnel and administrative failures, the main reason for the collapse of
ROCOR’s mission in
These problems can be divided into three
categories: (a) ROCOR in relation to her own flock at home and abroad, (b)
ROCOR in relation to the
(a)
ROCOR in relation to herself. The problem here was easily stated: how
could the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad continue to call herself the Church Abroad
if she now had parishes inside
However, the ROCOR episcopate declined his suggestion, probably because
a change in the Polozhenie that removed the spatial and temporal
limitations of ROCOR’s self-definition would have had the consequence of
forcing the ROCOR episcopate to: (i) remove the centre of her Church
administration from America to Russia, (ii) proclaim herself (alongside any
Catacomb Church groups that she might recognise) as part of the Russian
Orthodox Church inside Russia and distinguished from the other parts
only by its possessing dioceses and parishes abroad, and (iii) enter into a
life-and-death struggle with the MP for the minds and hearts of the Russian
people.
However, the ROCOR bishops (with the exception of Bishop Gregory
Grabbe) were not
prepared to accept these consequences. After all, they were well-established
abroad, increasingly dependent economically on contributions from foreign
converts to Orthodoxy, and with few exceptions were not prepared to exchange
the comforts and relative security of life in the West for the uncertainty and
privations of life in Russia (to this day ROCOR’s first-hierarch, Metropolitan
Vitaly, has not set foot on Russian soil since the fall of communism, in spite
of numerous invitations from believers). Of course, the whole raison
d’être of ROCOR was to return to her homeland in Russia (she was
previously called the Russian Church in Exile, and exiles by definition
want to return to their homeland); and it was in anticipation of such a return
that she had steadfastly refused to endanger her Russian identity by merging
with other Local Orthodox Churches or by forming local jurisdictions identified
with specific western countries (like the formerly Russian schism from ROCOR
calling itself the Orthodox Church of
America). But generations had passed since the first emigration, the
descendants of that first emigration had settled in western countries, learned
their languages, adopted their ways, put down roots in foreign soil. The exiles
were no longer exiles from, but strangers to, their native land…
(b)
ROCOR in relation to the Catacomb Church. Since 1927, when
ROCOR had broken communion simultaneously with the
These tendencies gave rise to the perception that the leadership of True
Orthodoxy had now passed from inside
Tragically, ROCOR relied on Bishop Lazarus’s testimony as their sole
guide to the canonicity or otherwise of the Catacomb bishops in
The main accusation against these Catacomb
hierarchs was their inability to prove their apostolic succession by producing
ordination certificates, as required by the 33rd Apostolic Canon.
This was, of course, a serious deficiency; and it was perfectly reasonable that
ROCOR should first seek to check their canonical status before entering into
communion with them. But in view of both
groups’ favourable attitude towards ROCOR, it would seem to have been more
reasonable and charitable to have talked with them directly, learned their
history and their point of view on the problem, and discussed with them some
way of correcting this deficiency without resorting to the punitive measures of
a papal curia. And such a charitable, unifying attitude to the various Catacomb
groups had been urged by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe). However, they were rejected
without the slightest consultation or attempt to come to some kind of agreement;
and so the possibility of correcting the canonical anomalies of these hierarchs
in a peaceful manner and with their complete cooperation was lost.
The news that ROCOR had rejected them
produced catastrophic effects in the lower clergy and laity of Catacomb groups.
Thus the present writer remembers coming to a catacomb gathering in
The impression was created that ROCOR had
come into
ROCOR
later came to believe that she had made a mistake in this matter. Thus
Archbishop Hilarion wrote to the present writer: “The statement which I signed
as Deputy Secretary of the Synod was based entirely on the information given to
us by Archbishop Lazarus. He reported to the Synod on the different groups of
the Catacombs and convinced the members of the Synod (or the Council – I don’t
recall offhand which) that their canonicity was questionable and in some
instances – their purity of doctrine as well (e.g. imyabozhniki). The Synod
members hoped (naively) that this would convince the catacomb groups to rethink
their position and seek from the Russian Church Abroad correction of their
orders to guarantee apostolic succession. We now see that it was a mistake to
issue the statement and to have based our understanding of the catacomb
situation wholly on the information provided by Vl. Lazarus. I personally
regret this whole matter very much and seek to have a better understanding of
and a sincere openness towards the long-suffering confessors of the Russian
Catacombs.”[71]
Such repentance was admirable, but
unfortunately lacking in fruits worthy of repentance. On November 21 /
The bad reputation of Bishop Lazarus led to a schism between ROCOR and
another branch of the
ROCOR’s relationship with the passportless
revealed an important theological difference between the True Churches inside
and outside
The Church inside Russia, living under the
threat of complete annihilation, was inclined to describe her situation in
apocalyptic terms, thus: since 1917 we have entered the last period of Church
history, the period of the Apocalypse; the True Church, like the woman clothed
in the sun, has fled into the wilderness, and the earth (the catacombs) has
swallowed her up; while the false church, the Moscow Patriarchate, is the whore
sitting on the red beast (communism) (Revelation chapters 12-13 and 17).
ROCOR had used very similar language to describe the situation in her
All-Emigration Council of Belgrade in 1938; but in the post-war years, as news
of the
This difference became a clear theological
divergence in, for example, the correspondence between Metropolitan Vitaly and
representatives of the passportless in the early 1990s. The metropolitan
compared the
The Passportless Christians were appalled
by the comparison – as if Rome, the state in which Christ Himself was born and
was registered in a census, and which later grew into the great Orthodox
Christian empires of Byzantium, the New Rome, and Russia, the Third Rome, could
be compared to the anti-state, the collective Antichrist established, not by
God, but by satan (Revelation 13.2), which had destroyed the Russian
empire![75]
Here we see a falling away of ROCOR from her own earlier teaching in
1933, when she had explicitly rejected the comparison between Soviet and Roman
power: “In the present case no historical parallels and analogies are
applicable to the Soviet regime. It would be inappropriate to compare it with
the Roman authority, submission to which the Apostles Peter and Paul demanded
of the Christians of their time…”[76]
(c)
ROCOR in relation to the MP.
Closely related to this difference in attitude towards the
The roots of this double-mindedness go back to the post-war period, when
large numbers of Christians fleeing towards
Thus a certain “dilution” in the quality of those joining ROCOR in the
second emigration by comparison with the first – and the problem was to get
worse with the third and fourth emigrations of the 70s, 80s and 90s – which
began to affect the confessing stance of the Church as a whole. Even members of
the first emigration were proving susceptible to deception: over half of the
Church in America and all except one diocese in China (that of Shanghai, led by
St. John Maximovich) were lured back into the arms of the Soviet “Fatherland”
and its Soviet “Church”. Another reason for this diminution in zeal was ROCOR’s
continuing communion with the Local Orthodox Churches of “World Orthodoxy” even
after all of these (except
This
ambiguous relationship towards “World Orthodoxy” inevitably began to affect
ROCOR’s zeal in relation to the MP in particular. For if the MP was recognised
by
As ROCOR began to lose confidence in
herself and the Catacomb Church as the only bearers of true Russian
Orthodoxy, the accent began to shift towards the preservation, not of Orthodoxy
as such, but of Russianness. But for a foreign Church, however Russian
in spirit, to claim to be more Russian than the Russians inside
As a result of all this, at the very
moment that ROCOR was called by God to enter into an open war with the MP for
the souls of the Russian people on Russian soil, she found herself tactically
unprepared, hesitant, unsure of her ability to fight this great enemy, unsure
even whether this enemy was in fact an enemy and not a potential friend, sister
or even “mother”. In consequence, ROCOR found itself “moving in two
directions”, as the brother-priests Dionysius and Timothy Alferov put it. “The
first was that of establishing [ROCOR] parishes in
This doublemindedness can be seen in ROCOR Synod’s statement of May
3/16, 1990, written by Archbishop Anthony of
The idea that there can be true priests in a heretical church is
canonical nonsense (Apostolic Canon 46), and Bishop Gregory (Grabbe)
immediately obtained the removal of the offending phrase. But the damage had
been done. The statement also spoke
about creating a “parallel” structure of parishes in
But, of course, ROCOR could not coexist with the MP inside
Bishop Valentine and ROCOR
The
official beginning of ROCOR’s mission in
His main opponent was Archbishop Mark of
In November, 1991 Bishop Valentine was
asked about Archbishop Mark’s role. The reply was carefully weighed: “When the
situation in
On October 3/16, 1990, Bishop Gregory wrote to Bishop Barnabas seeking
his support for Valentine. He was not very learned, he said, but he was “bold”
and “right-thinking”. He also sought support for Valentine from Archbishop
Anthony of
The boundaries of the three bishops’ dioceses were not clearly
delineated at this stage. As Archbishop Lazarus explained: “The Hierarchical
Synod decreed equal rights for us three Russian hierarchs. If someone from the
patriarchate wants to join Vladyka Valentine – please. If he wants to join
Vladyka Benjamin or me – please. So far the division [of dioceses] is only
conditional – more exactly,
From the middle of 1991 the lack of unity
among the bishops was becoming a major problem. “Lazarus,” writes Zalewski,
“did not answer Valentine’s letters and even broke off contact with the Office
of the Metropolitan in
Still more serious was the anti-canonical
interference of foreign clergy inside
Again, at a time when the MP, with the
help of the local authorities and OMON forces, was seizing back churches that
had gone over to the FROC by force, Archbishop Mark was calling for official
negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate[89],
publicly calling Lazarus and Benjamin poor administrators, and urging believers
in a publicly distributed letter “to distance yourselves from Bishop Valentine
of the Suzdal and Vladimir diocese of the Free Russian Orthodox Church”, whom
he described as “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Instead,
he told them to turn to Fr. Sergius Perekrestov (a priest who was later
defrocked for adultery before leaving the FROC). A priest of the Moscow
Patriarchate interpreted this letter to mean that ROCOR had “turned its back on
the Suzdal diocese of the FROC”.[90]
On
Archbishop Mark’s remarks about the
russification of Soviet man did not go down well in
“It is interesting that when their Eminences Archbishop Lazarus and
Bishop Benjamin, by virtue of the Apostolic canons and their pastoral
conscience, adopted, with me, a principled position on the question of his
Eminence Archbishop Mark’s claims to administer Russian parishes, the latter
simply dismissed the two hierarchs as being incapable of administration… Then
Archbishop Mark … chose a different tactic. He wrote a letter to
“Yesterday I was told that his Eminence Archbishop Mark sent a fax to
the Synod insistently recommending that his Eminence Barnabas not be recalled
from
The reference to Bishop Barnabas is explained as follows. In February,
1992 he had been sent to
As a result of this, the owner of the Mary-Martha Convent, which had
been Barnabas’ headquarters, took fright and removed it from ROCOR…
On August 3, Bishop Barnabas organized “a conference of the clergy with
the aim of organizing the
On
October 25 /
However, in February, 1993, at a meeting of the Synod in
Bishop Gregory desperately tried to support the Russian bishops against
Barnabas, but almost the entire foreign episcopate was now working to support
Barnabas and undermine Valentine – including the metropolitan, who had changed
course yet again. Thus on
In 1993 Archimandrite Adrian and a large patriarchal parish in Noginsk
numbering no less than 10,000 parishioners applied to come under the omophorion
of Bishop Valentine, and was accepted by him on January 19. At the same time
the MP circulated an accusation - signed by a woman but with no other
indication of time, place or names of witnesses of the supposed crime - that
Archimandrite Adrian had raped one altar boy and had had improper relations
with another. This accusation turned out to be completely fabricated – the
“raped” altar boy wrote a letter of apology to Fr. Adrian and the letter was
accepted by the prosecutor in the criminal court. Both youngsters were then
sued for stealing icons…
In spite of this, Bishop Barnabas convened a “Church Court of the Moscow
Diocesan Administration”, and without any kind of investigation or trial,
banned the archimandrite, although he belonged to a different diocese, on the
grounds of immorality. (The two priests in this court, Protopriest Alexis
Averianov and Archimandrite Ioasaph Shibaev had already been unlawfully
received by Bishop Barnabas into his jurisdiction, although they had been
banned (whether justly or not is not the question here) by Archbishop Lazarus.)
Now Archimandrite Adrian, who later joined the Ukrainian church,
did turn out to be a less than strictly moral priest. Nevertheless, this in no
way justified Bishop Barnabas’ uncanonical actions. Moreover, as the Russian newspapers pointed
out, Bishop Barnabas seemed to be partially supporting the patriarchate in the
struggle for this parish – in which, as Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) pointed out,
the KGB appeared also to be operating.[99]
Incited by Barnabas, several ROCOR bishops wanted to proceed with
defrocking Bishop Valentine; but the decision was made to retire him instead on
grounds of his ill-health – a completely uncanonical decision since neither had
Bishop Valentine petitioned for his retirement nor had the ROCOR bishops
investigated his state of health. Bishop Barnabas also attacked Archbishop
Lazarus as an incompetent old man, and Bishop Benjamin as a collective farm worker
in bast shoes!
Worse was to come. Bishop Barnabas wrote (on official Synod notepaper)
to Metropolitan Vladimir (Romanyuk) of the uncanonical
Bishop Barnabas’ contribution was summed up as follows: “In the shortest
time [he] introduced the most complete chaos[101] into
the life of the Free Church, which was beginning to be reborn. This
representative of the Synod began, above the heads of the Diocesan Bishops of
the Free Church in Russia, and in violation of the basic canonical rules, to
receive into his jurisdiction clerics who had been banned from serving by them,
to carry out ordinations in their dioceses without their knowledge, and finally
was not ashamed to demand, at the Council in 1993, that he should be given
rights to administer all the parishes of
the Free Church in Russia![102]
This request was not granted by the Council, the more so in that it learned
that ‘the empowered representative of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad in
Moscow’, on writing-paper of the Hierarchical Synod, wrote a petition to ‘the Locum
Tenens of the Kievan Patriarchal Throne’, Metropolitan Vladimir (Romanyuk),
in which it said that ‘the treacherous Muscovite scribblers hired by the Moscow
Patriarchate are trying to trample into the mud the authority of the Russian
Church Abroad. In this connection: we beseech you, Your Eminence, through the
Kievan Patriarchate headed by you, to give our ecclesiastical activity a
juridical base and receive us into brotherly communion.’ Extraordinary as it
may seem, the Council did not consider it necessary to defrock its
representative, and it was put to him that he should set off for the Holy Land
for a mere three months without right of serving – which, however, he did not
carry out. This shameful letter was widely distributed by the Moscow
Patriarchate, while the ‘Patriarchal Locum Tenens’, delighted by this
prospect, invited the First-Hierarch of the Church Abroad to visit
The
First Schism
On April 14/27, 1993 Archbishop Lazarus sent an “explanatory report” to
the Synod detailing the many serious canonical violations committed against the
Russian bishops, and in particular against himself, to which the leadership of
ROCOR had not reacted in spite of many appeals. He then declared his “temporary
administrative separation” from the Synod until the Synod restored canonical
order. But, he insisted, he was not breaking communion with ROCOR. As a result
of this, without consulting either him or his diocese, ROCOR meeting in
In May, during its Council in Lesna, the Synod effectively retired
Bishop Valentine also – it goes without saying, against his will and without
canonical justification. As Metropolitan Vitaly wrote to him: “The Hierarchical
Council has become acquainted with your administrative successes. However, your
health in such a difficult situation makes it necessary for us to retire you
because of illness until your full recovery. This means that if you are
physically able, you can serve, since you are in now way banned from church
serving, but you are simply freed from administrative cares”.
During the Council a letter was read from a group of Catacomb Christians
expressing disagreement with the actions of Archbishop Lazarus and asking that
Bishop Barnabas be placed in charge of all the Russian parishes.
Bishop Barnabas also received support from a parish in
At the same time, however, Archbishop Mark told the bishops that in five
years his German diocese would no longer exist, and that more and more people
considered the confrontational approach to the MP wrong. He was opposed by
Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Anthony of
In a report to the Synod dated May 16/29, after sharply criticizing the Synod’s
unjust and uncanonical actions against Bishop Valentine, Bishop Gregory said:
“Our responsibility before God demands from us the annulment of this conciliar
resolution, and if there are accusers who have material which has not yet been
shown us in documentary form, then Bishop Valentine must be returned to his see
and the affair must be either cut short or again reviewed by the Council, but
now in agreement with the canons that we have in the Church. For this would
clearly be necessary to convene a Council, and for a start a judgement must be
made about it in the Synod…
“As a consequence of this Archbishop
Lazarus has already left us. And Bishop Valentine’s patience is already being
tried. If he, too, will not bear the temptation, what will we be left with?
Will his flock in such a situation want to leave with him? Will not it also
rebel?
“For clarity’s sake I must begin with an examination of certain matters
brought up at the expanded session of the Synod which took place in
“A certain tension was noticeable there in spite of the external
calmness. It turned out that behind the scenes a suspicious attitude towards
Bishop Valentine had arisen. Already after the closing of the Synod I learned
that several members of the Synod had been shown a document containing
accusations of transgressions of the laws of morality against Bishop Valentine.
The President of the Synod did not have this document during the sessions but
only at the end. It was then that I, too, received a copy of the denunciation
from Archbishop Mark, who was given it by Bishop Barnabas, who evidently did
not know how to deal with such objects according to the Church canons. I
involuntarily ascribed the unexpected appearance of such a document amidst the
members of the Synod to the action of some communist secret agents and to the
inexperience of Bishop Barnabas in such matters.
“The caution of the Church authorities in relation to similar
accusations in the time of troubles after the persecutions was ascribed to the
74th Apostolic canon, the 2nd canon of the 1st
Ecumenical Council and especially to the 6th canon of the 2nd
Ecumenical Council. At that time the heretics were multiplying their intrigues
against the Orthodox hierarchs. The above-mentioned canons indicate that
accusations hurled by less than two or three witnesses – who were, besides,
faithful children of the Church and accusers worthy of trust – were in no way
to be accepted…
“Did they apply such justice and caution when they judged Bishop
Valentine, and were ready without any investigation to ... defrock him for
receiving Archimandrite Adrian? And were the accusations hurled at the latter
really seriously examined?
“Beginning with the processing, contrary to the canons, of the
accusations against Bishop Valentine on the basis of the single complaint of a
person known to none of us[105], the
Sobor was already planning to defrock him without any kind of due process,
until the argument of his illness turned up. But here, too, they failed to
consider that this required his own petition and a check to ascertain the
seriousness of his illness. The intention was very simple: just get rid of a
too active Bishop. They didn’t think of the fate of his parishes, which exist
on his registration. Without him they would lose it.
“While we, in the absence of the accused and, contrary to the canons,
without his knowledge, were deciding the fate of the Suzdal diocese, Vladyka
Valentine received three more parishes. Now he has 63. Taking into account
Archimandrite Adrian with his almost 10,000 people, we are talking about
approximately twenty thousand souls.
“The question arises: in whose interests is
it to destroy what the papers there call the centre of the Church Abroad in
“The success of Bishop Valentine’s mission has brought thousands of
those being saved into our Church, but now this flock is condemned to widowhood
and the temptation of having no head only because he turned out not to be
suitable to some of our Bishops…”[106]
It was in this highly charged atmosphere, with their bishop forcibly and
uncanonically retired and the registration of all their parishes hanging by a
thread, that the annual diocesan conference of the Suzdal diocese took place
from June 9/22 to 11/24. It was also attended by priests representing
Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Benjamin. Hieromonk Agathangelus read out a
letter from Archbishop Lazarus in which he declared that although he had considered
the actions of ROCOR
in
The Conference’s Address and Resolutions accused the ROCOR Synod of
inactivity and of not defending the parishes in
After quoting these words, Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles wrote, in a
letter to Metropolitan Vitaly: “All the documents of the congress: the Agenda,
the Resolutions, the Address to the Synod and the Protocols serve as vivid
accusations first of all against Bishop Valentine, but also against all the
participants in the congress who signed the Address and Resolutions…
“How is one to describe this, which is only a few extracts from the
whole? This is uncommon ignorance, and madness, and untruth, and rebellion, and
murmuring, and open threats of a schism, and an unjust comparison of the Church
Abroad with the MP, and the taking on themselves of the role of a higher
arbiter over the Hierarchical Council. In the unprecedented demand that the
resolutions of the Council be rescinded it is not indicated precisely which
resolutions are meant.
“Moreover, the threat of separation from the Church Abroad if the
unnamed demands are not met, besides the mad demand that the dioceses abroad be
liquidated, constitutes a real threat…”[108]
The tone of the conference documents was indeed strong: but it could
well be argued that the very serious situation warranted it, and that hierarchs
such as Archbishop Anthony, instead of complaining about “rebellion” and “a
real threat”, should have acted to avert the threat by helping their brothers
in the Homeland…
At the end of the conference it was decided that the Suzdal diocese
would follow Archbishop Lazarus’ example in separating administratively from
ROCOR while retaining communion in prayer with it. Bishop Valentine expressed
the hope that this would be only a temporary measure, and he called on
Metropolitan Vitaly to convene an extraordinary Council to remove the
anticanonical resolutions of the Council in Lesna and the Synod meeting in
A
meeting of the clergy Archbishop Lazarus’ diocese in
On
By the beginning of 1994 the Russian
bishops had received no reaction whatsoever from the Synod to any of their
letters and requests. This was probably under the influence especially of
Archbishop Mark, who told the Hierarchical Council that “Valentine is a tank
that will crush us under its weight.”[112]
On March 8/21, 1994, in a conference
taking place in Suzdal, Bishop Valentine said: “On June 10/23, 1993 in Suzdal
there took place a diocesan congress in which resolutions were taken and an
Address was sent to the Synod indicating the transgressions, by the
above-mentioned Hierarchs, of the Apostolic Canons and decrees of the Fathers
of the Church, of the Ecumenical and Local Councils. At the same time they
asked that his Grace Bishop Barnabas be recalled, and that Archbishop Mark
should ask forgiveness of the clergy and the Russian people for his humiliation
of their honour and dignity. If our request were ignored, the whole weight of
responsibility would lie on the transgressors of the Church canons. But so far
there has been no reply.
“We sent the Resolution of the clergy, monastics and laypeople warning
that if there continued to be transgressions of the Apostolic Canons and
Conciliar Resolutions on the part of the Hierarchs, with the connivance of the
Hierarchical Synod, the whole responsibility would lie as a heavy burden on the
transgressors. The Synod did not reply.
“Together with his Eminence Archbishop Lazarus and the members of the
Diocesan Councils I sent an address to the Synod in which their attention was
drawn to the wily intrigues on the part of those who wished us ill, and asked
that the situation be somehow corrected, placing our hopes on Christian love
and unity of mind, which help to overcome human infirmities. But in the same
address we laid out in very clear fashion our determination that if the
Hierarchical Synod did not put an end to the deliberate transgressions, we
would be forced to exist independently, in accordance with the holy Patriarch
Tikhon’s ukaz ¹
362 of November 7/20, 1920, in the interests of the purity of Orthodoxy and the
salvation of our Russian flock. The reply consisted in Vladyka Metropolitan
threatening a ban.
“I sent a letter to Metropolitan Vitaly in which I besought him
earnestly to confirm my status before the Ministry of Justice of the
“It is difficult for you to imagine how much labour we had to expend,
how many written bureaucratic demands we had to fulfil, in order to get our
Regulations re-registered. If I had not undertaken this, all the churches would
automatically have been taken out of registration and then, believe me, the
Moscow Patriarchate would not have let go such a ‘juicy morsel’.”[113]
After hearing more speeches in the same vein, including one from Archbishop
Lazarus, the Congress made the following decisions: 1. To form a Temporary
Higher Church Administration (THCA) of the Russian Orthodox Church, which,
without claiming to be the highest Church authority in Russia, would have as
its final aim the convening of a Free All-Russian Local Council that would have
such authority. 2. To elect and consecrate new bishops. 3. To declare their
gratitude to ROCOR
and Metropolitan Vitaly, whose name would continue to be commemorated in Divine
services, since they wished to remain in communion of prayer with him. 4. To
express the hope that the Hierarchical Synod would recognize the THCA and the
consecrations performed by it.
One of the members of the Congress, Elena Fadeyevna Shipunova, the wife
of Protopriest Andrew Osetrov, declared: “It is now completely obvious that the
subjection of the Russian dioceses to the Synod Abroad contradicts the second
point of Ukaz ¹
362. The
On
March 9/22 the THCA, which now contained three new bishops: Theodore of
Borisovsk, Seraphim of Sukhumi and Agathangelus of Simferopol, together with
many clergy, monastics and laity, informed Metropolitan Vitaly and the Synod of
ROCOR of their
decision.
On March 23 / April 5 the Synod of ROCOR rejected this declaration and
the new consecrations, and decided to break communion in prayer with the newly
formed
In its May, 1993 Council in Lesna, the
ROCOR hierarchs decided that the Church in Russia was now free and changed the
commemoration “For the Orthodox episcopate of the persecuted Church of Russia”
to “For the Orthodox episcopate of the Church of Russia”. [117]
Protopriest Benjamin Zhukov asked: “What
Church were they talking about? A lack of precision was revealed, and confusion
was created between ‘the persecuted
However, the FROC, with its direct and
ongoing experience of persecution, retained the old formula.
During the Sobor, Bishop Barnabas
criticised all the bishops in
Then, in order to strengthen ROCOR’s hand
in the coming struggle with the FROC, Archimandrite Eutyches (Kurochkin) was
consecrated Bishop of Ishim and
Bishop Gregory, who had not been admitted to the sessions of the ROCOR
Synod, fully approved of the actions of the Russian Hierarchs in a letter to
Bishop Valentine dated March 24 / April 6. And on the same day he wrote the
following to Metropolitan Vitaly: “We have brought the goal of the possible
regeneration of the Church in
“As I warned the Synod in my last report, we have done absolutely
everything possible to force the Russian bishops to separate from us
administratively. They have had to proceed from Resolution ¹ 362 of Patriarch Tikhon of
November 7/20, 1920 in order to avoid the final destruction of the just-begun
regeneration of our Church in our Fatherland. But our Synod, having nothing
before its eyes except punitive tactics, proceeds only on the basis of a normalized
church life. Whereas the Patriarch’s Resolution had in mind the preservation of
the Church’s structure in completely unprecedented historical and
ecclesiastical circumstances.
“The ukaz was composed for various cases, including means for the
re-establishment of the Church’s Administration even in conditions of its
abolition (see article 9) and ‘the extreme disorganization of Church life’.
This task is placed before every surviving hierarch, on condition that he is
truly Orthodox.
“The Russian Hierarchs felt themselves to be in this position when, for
two years running, their inquiries and requests to provide support against the
oppression of the Moscow Patriarchate were met with complete silence on the
part of our Synod.
“Seeing the canonical chaos produced in their dioceses by Bishop
Barnabas, and the Synod’s silent collusion with him, the Russian Hierarchs came
to the conclusion that there was no other way of avoiding the complete
destruction of the whole enterprise but their being led by the Patriarch’s
Resolution ¹
362.
“Our Synod unlawfully retired Bishop Valentine for his reception of a
huge parish in Noginsk,.. but did not react to the fact that Bishop Barnabas
had in a treacherous manner disgraced the Synod, in whose name he petitioned to
be received into communion with the Ukrainian self-consecrators!
“I don’t know whether the full text of Resolution ¹ 362 has been read at the Synod.
I myself formerly paid little attention to it, but now, having read it, I see that
the Russian Hierarchs have every right to cite it, and this fact will come to
the surface in the polemic that will inevitably take place now. I fear that by
its decisions the Synod has already opened the path to this undesirable
polemic, and it threatens to create a schism not only in
“There are things which it is impossible to stop, and it is also
impossible to escape the accomplished fact. If our Synod does not now correctly
evaluate the historical moment that has taken place, then its already
profoundly undermined prestige (especially in
“All the years of the existence of the Church Abroad we have enjoyed
respect for nothing else than our uncompromising faithfulness to the canons.
They hated us, but they did not dare not to respect us. But now we have shown
the whole Orthodox world that the canons are for us an empty sound, and we have
become a laughing-stock in the eyes of all those who have even the least relationship
to Church affairs.
“You yourself, at the Synod in Lesna, allowed yourself to say that for
us, the participants in it, it was now not the time to examine the canons, but
we had to act quickly. You, who are at the helm of the ship of the Church,
triumphantly, before the whole Sobor, declared to us that we should now hasten
to sail without a rudder and without sails. At that time your words greatly
disturbed me, but I, knowing your irritability with me for insisting on the
necessity of living according to the canons, nevertheless hoped that all was
not lost yet and that our Bishops would somehow shake off the whole of this
nightmare of recent years.
“Think, Vladyko, of the tens of thousands of Orthodox people both abroad
and in
Unfortunately, however, Metropolitan Vitaly was beginning to show the
same kind of condescending and contemptuous attitude to the Russian flock as
Archbishop Mark had been demonstrating for some time. Thus in one letter to
Bishop Valentine, after rebuking him for receiving Archimandrite Adrian, he wrote:
“We understand that, living in the Soviet Union for these 70 years of atheist
rule, such a deep seal of Sovietism and of departure from right thinking has
penetrated into the world-view of the Russian people that you, too, were
involuntarily caught up by the spirit of this wave…”[122]
Even such
an attitude would have been tolerable if the metropolitan had decided to govern
the Church in accordance with the holy canons. But at the Lesna Council in 1993
he had told a priest to tell Bishop Gregory not to keep referring to the
canons![123]
Some FROC priests – notably Protopriest Lev Lebedev of Kursk – while
fully agreeing that the ROCOR bishops had committed uncanonical acts on Russian
soil, nevertheless believed that the actions of the FROC bishops had been hasty
and were justified only in the case that ROCOR had fallen away from Orthodoxy,
which, as everyone agreed, had not yet taken place. In a letter to Bishop
Gregory dated
Bishop Gregory argued that ROCOR’s two founding documents, the ukaz
¹ 362 and the Polozhenie of ROCOR, did not allow for the Church outside
“And indeed, our parishes in
“In other words, we can say that if there is willingness on our side we
now have every opportunity of setting in order the complete regeneration of the
Russian Orthodox Church in our Fatherland.
“The very first paragraph of the ‘Statute on the Russian Church Abroad’
says: ’The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indivisible part of the Russian Local Church TEMPORARILY
self-governing on conciliar principles UNTIL THE REMOVAL OF THE ATHEIST POWER
in Russia in accordance with the resolution of the holy Patriarch Tikhon, the
Holy Synod and the Higher Ecclesiastical Council of the Russian Church of
November 7/20, 1920 ¹
362 (emphasis mine, B. G.).
“If we now lead the Russian Hierarch to want to break their
administrative links with the Church Abroad, then will not our flock abroad
finally ask us: what ‘Episcopate of the
“Will we not then enter upon a very dubious canonical path of autonomous
existence, but now without a Patriarchal blessing and outside the
“It is necessary for us to pay very careful attention to and get to know
the mood revealed in our clergy in the Suzdal diocese, so as on our part to
evaluate the mood in which our decisions about the Church in
“But
will we not see then that it is one thing when the Church Abroad gives help to the Russian Church through
the restoration in it of a canonical hierarchy, but something else entirely when we lay claims to rule the WHOLE of
Russia from abroad, which was in no way envisaged by even one paragraph of the
‘Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad’, nor by one of our later
resolutions?”[125]
Bishop Gregory was right: ROCOR had over-reached her (never
well-defined) canonical prerogatives. The result was the collapse of her
mission inside
The
In July, 1994 a liturgical union took place between ROCOR, the Romanian
Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Blaise, the Bulgarian Old Calendarists
under Bishop Photius of Triaditsa and the Greek Old Calendarists under
Metropolitan Cyprian of Orope and Fili (the “Cyprianites”).[126]
Any reversal of the process of fragmentation among the True Orthodox
Churches could only be accounted a positive sign. In this case, however, union
was achieved at the price of ROCOR officially rejecting the validity of the
Florinites’ defrocking of Metropolitan Cyprian in 1985 and accepting very
controversial ecclesiology, which recognised that the churches of ecumenist
“World Orthodoxy” still had grace, as her own.
From the start, there were many critics of the union among conservative
members of ROCOR in
At first, however, this True Orthodox union, like the earlier, more
solidly based one of 1971, appeared to elicit an encouraging response from the
heretics. For from the middle of the 1990s, some signs of a genuinely spiritual
revival in World Orthodoxy were discerned in the emergence of anti-ecumenist
movements in
Those were honest and true words. But they were not followed up by
appropriate action. Thus when 340 priests, monks and nuns of the
“Unfortunately,” writes Bishop Artemius, “it soon became apparent that
the concluding points of this decision of the Serbian Orthodox Church Assembly
annulled all the aforementioned compelling reasons for a final and permanent
withdrawal from membership and partnership with the WCC. The Thessalonica
Summit of the representatives of all of the Orthodox Churches was soon held and
its ‘conclusions’ prevented the Serbian Orthodox Church from carrying out its
1997 decision to withdraw from the WCC… The essence of the conclusions of the
Thessalonica gathering was to seek a radical reorganisation of the Council,
which did not occur in the next seven years to the present day [September,
2004]. These ‘conclusions’, therefore, remained ‘a dead letter’. The WCC did
not reorganise itself in any respect and become closer to the Orthodox Church
of Christ, nor did any local Orthodox Church (including the Serbian Church)
withdraw from membership in the WCC as a result of this. The reasons and
justifications for withdrawing from membership from the WCC (as presented in
the decision of the S.O.C, Assembly) are also still valid, as are,
unfortunately, the harmful ecclesiological consequences that follow from that
membership. Thus by its second response this Assembly of the Serbian Orthodox
Church, abandoning its earlier decision (from 1997) and its justification,
continued and extended its organic participation as an equal member of the WCC,
guiding itself and its flock down the path of ruin…”[130]
During the late 1990s, the Bulgarian and
The Georgian decision was elicited by the separation of two groups from
the official
Fr. Basil (now Igumen Gregory) Lourié continues the story: “Having
withdrawn, in 1997, from international ecumenical organizations, the official
Georgian Patriarchate has recently made its next step away from ecumenical
jurisdictions. Upon recommendation of the Georgian Patriarchate’s Divinity
Commission, in its Synodal meeting of October 8, the
“It is quite obvious that this step back
from ecumenism…has been driven by Orthodox zealots who have, over the past two
years, been particularly vocal in
“Even if we
ignore the fact that the Patriarchate would never have initiated the
persecution of Georgian Orthodox zealots, who have recently established the
True Orthodox Church of Georgia[135],
if its goals had not been completely at variance with those of True Orthodox
Christians; even if we decline to discuss the identity of Patriarch Elias, a
veteran ecumenist and follower of Nicodemus [of Leningrad], and a KGB agent
code-named Iverieli since 1962, for whom the beginning of repentance would mean
the end of his term in office; and even if we are completely unaware of what is
really going on in Georgia’s ecclesiastical life, we can still discern one very
essential inconsistency in the above-mentioned Georgian Synodal document which
brings to naught all its purported ‘Orthodox’ merits, thus effectively
downgrading the document to the level of a mere tactical loophole. Although the
Synod does raise its voice against some random particulars of the ecumenical
movement, reasonably citing their non-orthodox, i.e. heretical, nature, it
proceeds to conclusions which no genuine Orthodox believer facing a heresy
would ever make.
“Denunciation of any ecumenical
developments as erroneous is no proof of the denouncer’s own adherence to the
Orthodox faith. Denouncement of a heresy from a truly Orthodox standpoint
would, first and foremost, involve a severance of ecclesiastical communion with
the parties guilty of the heresy. In other words, as Georgian Orthodox zealots
reasonably reminded the Georgian Patriarchate back in 1997, it is not enough to
withdraw from all manner of ecumenical activities; it is necessary to break
communion with all ecumenical jurisdictions, especially with
“For true Orthodox Christians, the issues
of ‘intercommunion,’ ‘common prayers,’ or ‘ecclesiastical commission’ acquire
relevance only in relation to pseudo-Orthodox ecumenical jurisdictions: for
example, he who administers a common service with the New Calendarists is an
ecumenist. Although the Georgian Patriarchate no longer hails the Roman
Catholic Church as its ‘sister church’, it still maintains a ‘sisterly’
relationship with the Constantinople Patriarchate and, therefore, the Georgian
Patriarchate cannot be recognized as Orthodox, and the causes of Georgia’s
ecclesiastical schism still persist in their undiminished entirety.
“Meanwhile, the above considerations do
not cover the most outstanding singularity of the Georgian Synod’s decision. If
this decision was, indeed, a tactical move, the question is: what sort of
object could such a tactic possibly further? I daresay, I do have an answer,
and it is based on an analysis of all the reshuffles that have occurred in the
Orthodox world over the last 15 years.
“The acceleration of the ‘ecumenical
build-up’ in a bid to attain ‘Pan-Christian unity’ in most of the world by the
year 2000 has made it absolutely imperative to create some kind of ‘collector’
for ‘the conservatives’ since it will obviously take at least one or two
generations before ‘the conservatives’ become completely extinct. It was,
therefore, necessary to give them a provisional modus vivendi enabling
them to avoid the psychological discomfort of being involved in ecumenical
activities ‘too directly’ while at the same time preserving them as part of the
‘great and boundless’ ecumenical
“Starting in the mid-1980s, certain
postulates of mid-20th century Saints dating back to the time when
hope was still alive that the New Calendarist Greek Church and the Moscow
Patriarchate would mend their ways… created the foundation for a semblance of
‘special divinity’ formulated as follows: we are divorcing ourselves from the
‘official’ jurisdictions on account of their heresies, yet we will continue to
regard them as members of the Orthodox Church, albeit ailing members. In other
words, according to this ecclesiology, the sojourn of such ‘ailing’ members
within the Church may be (spiritually) harmful, but at least there is no threat
of their full defection from the bosom of the Church, since the full defection
of ecumenical jurisdictions from the Church may not be effected outside some
extraordinary Council involving the participation of the jurisdictions
concerned.
“In
“’The Third Way’ between Orthodoxy and
ecumenism may yet prove suitable for a small official ‘local churches’ with
pronounced traditionalist sentiment among their laity and lower clergy
(Georgia, for instance), not just for conservative factions within Old-Calendar
Greek or Russian communities. The ecumenical ‘ocean’ will not become any
shallower without such a small country as
The hollowness of the “Third Way” was
demonstrated at the Eighth General Assembly of the WCC in Harare in December,
1998, when “the two Patriarchates of Georgia and Bulgaria were exposed, since,
although they had withdrawn from the WCC for supposedly serious reasons, now –
through their observers at Harare – they declared their loyalty, on the one
hand, to the ecumenical ideal and, on the other hand, justified themselves on
the grounds that their decisions to withdraw from the WCC were prompted by
pressure from ‘conservative elements’!
“A Georgian clergyman, Father Vasili
Kobakhidze, revealingly stated that ‘… the Georgian Orthodox were, are, and
always will be your brothers and sisters in the Lord. Patriarch Ilia and the
Orthodox Church of Georgia were forced to leave the ecumenical movement on
account of fanatics and fundamentalists and in order to avoid an internal
schism, but they always pray for Christian unity.’
“In one of his delegation’s documents, the
Bulgarian theologian Ivan Dimitrov (one of seven Bulgarian observers),
expressed ‘sorrow for their Church’s withdrawal from the WCC,’ saying that ‘the
Bulgarian church’s decision to withdraw from the WCC had been taken, “not out
of anti-ecumenical convictions, but under pressure from the Old Calendarist
church.”’[138]
This was an interesting and important
admission, which is obliquely confirmed by the text of the
The Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church
The FROC still sought reconciliation with ROCOR, and so the two senior
bishops, Archbishop Lazarus and Bishop Valentine, went to the Lesna Sobor of ROCOR
in November, 1994, and after asking forgiveness, were again received into
communion. According to Bishop Valentine, “there took place mutual
repentance and forgiveness between ROCOR and FROC”.[140] He may
have been referring here to the first and second points of the "Act"
that was presented to the two Russian bishops for their signatures, which
certainly implied that blame was not to be attached to one side exclusively.
The "Act" greatly troubled the two bishops, because they saw
that it involved changes that were very detrimental for the life of the FROC.
However, Archbishop Lazarus wanted to sign nevertheless, and Bishop Valentine,
though unwilling to sign, did not want to create a schism among the Russian
bishops by not following the lead of his senior, Archbishop Lazarus. But he did
obtain an assurance that if he wanted to amend any points in the Act, he could
do so and his amendments would be included in the final published document.
However, he was urged to sign now "in the name of brotherly love". So
he signed, after which he promptly had a heart attack, and was whisked away to
a hospital in
On
In January, 1995 there took place the fifth congress of the bishops,
monastics and laity of the Suzdal Diocese to discuss the results of the Lesna
Sobor. Opening the congress, Bishop Valentine said: “On returning home to the
diocese, I have not begun to hide anything or to lay it on thick. Equally, I
have not begun to soften those circumstances in which we found ourselves at the
Hierarchical Council. I have expounded everything as in confession and and
offered everyone to make their judgement on the given question. My brothers and
co-bishops, and also the members of the Diocesan council, on getting to know
the state of affairs and having carefully read the Act, have unambiguously and
categorically rejected it, which has served as the reason for convening the
Congress of clergy, monastics and laity of the Suzdal Diocese and for reaching
a decision on the future functioning of the THCA and of our Orthodox existence
as a whole. The Church Administrative district (THCA) that has been created
cannot pass under the jurisdiction of the Synod Abroad and cannot be dissolved
by it. We are more than convinced that we no longer have to wait long for the
time when the two parts, ROCOR and the FROC, will unite into one and will work
together to prepare the All-Russian Council to re-establish the unity that has
been lost and a worthy leadership of the
This message sent out mixed signals: on the one hand, that the Act in
its existing form was unacceptable and that the Church inside Russia was no
longer prepared to be administered from outside Russia, and on the other hand
that the Church inside Russia did not want to break eucharistic communion with
the Church outside Russia. When the discussion was passed to the hall, the Act
was widely and strongly criticized by the parish clergy, as was the ROCOR
Synod’s proposed redefining of diocesan boundaries. The latter was of
particular concern to them because it would necessitate the re-registration of
very many parishes. Since they had achieved registration only with the greatest
difficulty in the first place, they did not of course welcome this prospect. But
more importantly, it would very probably mean that they would be refused any
registration, since the Moscow Patriarchate representatives in the ministry of
Justice would insist that changing names and diocesan boundaries was
unacceptable. This in turn would very likely mean that their churches would be
handed over to the Moscow Patriarchate.
It was therefore proposed that ROCOR be
respectfully asked to amend the Act in a number of points, and a corresponding
epistle to the Hierarchical Synod of ROCOR was drawn up.[141]
However, two hierarchs present at this
meeting – Bishop Eutyches and Bishop Benjamin - interpreted this proposal as a
rebellion against the authority of ROCOR which the senior bishops Lazarus and
Valentine had only recently reaffirmed. As Eutyches put it several years later:
“The unfortunate monk Valentine Rusantsov, in signing the Act of reconciliation
with the Council of ROCOR, had, as time showed, something quite different in
his thought and intentions: to hide this Act from his flock, never to carry it
out, and then to overthrow it”.[142]
However, (i) Valentine did not
hide the Act from his flock, but discussed it with them openly and
extensively, (ii) if he and his fellow-bishops hd seemed to reject it before
the beginning of the Congress, this was, nevertheless, not their final
decision, which was not to reject it outright but to seek amendments. This was
only reasonable considering that it was precisely the Russian flock that would
suffer all the evil consequences of the Act’s ill-thought-out propositions.
Then a priest asked Bishop Eutyches which
had a higher authority for him: the Apostolic Canons and the decisions of the
Russian Council of 1917-18 and of his Holiness Patriarch Tikhon - or those of
the ROCOR Synod? Bishop Eutyches replied: “The resolutions of living hierarchs
are preferable to those of dead ones. Even if the resolutions of the ROCOR
Synod were uncanonical, for me this would have no significance, I would be
bound to carry them out”. This reply elicited uproar in the hall, and Bishop
Eutyches left (taking with him a recording of the proceedings).
Shortly before this Congress, the ROCOR
Synod had sent a respectfully worded invitation to Bishops Theodore,
Agathangelus and Seraphim to come to
On the next day after the arrival of
Bishops Theodore and Agathangelus in New York, in Bishop Agathangelus’ words,
“we were handed a ‘Decree of the Hierarchical Synod of the Synod of ROCOR’, in
which their Graces Lazarus and Valentine, and also Bishops Theodore, Seraphim
and I, were declared to be banned from serving.[144]
For Vladyka Theodore and me this was like a bolt from the blue… We were told
that the reason for this decision was our supposed non-fulfilment of the
conciliar Act, which had been signed by, among the other Hierarchs, their
Graces Lazarus and Valentine. The point was that the conference of Russian
Bishops which had been formed in agreement with this same Act had asked for
several formulations in the Act to be changed, so as not to introduce
disturbance into the ranks of the believers by the categorical nature of
certain points. This was a request, not a demand. But, however hard we tried,
we could not convince the Synod that none of the Russian Bishops was insisting
and that we were all ready to accept the Act in the form in which it had been
composed. We met with no understanding on the part of the members of the Synod.
Vladyka Theodore and I affirmed in writing that we accepted the text of the Act
in the form in which it had been composed and asked for a postponement in the
carrying out of the ‘Decree’ until the position of all the absent Russian
Bishops on this question could be clarified. In general we agreed to make any
compromises if only the ‘Decree’ were not put into effect, because in essence
it meant only one thing – the final break between the Russian parishes and
ROCOR.
“We gradually came to understand that it
was not any canonical transgression of the Russian Bishops (there was none),
nor any disagreement with the text of the conciliar Act, nor, still less, any
mythical ‘avaricious aims’ that was the reason for the composition of this
document, which, without any trial or investigation, banned the five Hierarchs
from serving. It was the Hierarchical Conference of the Russian Bishops, which
had been established by the Council that took place in Lesna monastery, that
was the real reason giving birth to the ‘Decree’. The Sobor of Hierarchs, moved
in those days by ‘Paschal joy’ (as Metropolitan Vitaly repeated several times),
finally came to create an organ of administration in
“The members of the Synod, exceeding their
authority, since such decisions are in the competence of the Sobor, decided, by
means of canonical bans, to confirm their sole authority over the whole of
Russia – both historical Russia and Russia abroad. The very foundations of the
Church Abroad as a part of the
“It did not even ponder the fact that, in
banning at one time five Hierarchs, it was depriving more than 150 parishes –
that is many thousands of Orthodox people – of archpastoral care. Cancelling
the labour of many years of Hierarchs, priests and conscious, pious laymen in
our Fatherland.
“In
“Vladyka Theodore and I were promised
that, in exchange for our treachery, we would be confirmed in our hierarchical
rank. And it was even proclaimed that we would be appointed to foreign sees.
For us personally, who were born and brought up in
This act of blackmail – we recognize you
if you accept a foreign see, but do not recognize you if you stay in
On February 24 the ROCOR Synod issued an
epistle which for the first time contained a semblance of canonical
justification in the form of a list of canons supposedly transgressed by the
five Russian bishops. Unfortunately, they clearly had no relevance to the
matter in hand. Thus what relevance could the 57th Canon of the
Council of Carthage – “On the Donatists and the children baptized by the
Donatists” – have to the bishops of the Free Russian Orthodox Church?![146]
The Synodal Epistle said that “on
returning to
This was a lie, and on February 28, Bishop
Gregory (Grabbe) wrote to Bishop Valentine: “I cannot fail to express my great
sorrow with regard to the recent Church events. Moreover, I wish to say to you
that I was glad to get to know Vladykas Theodore and Agathangelus better. They
think well and in an Orthodox manner. It is amazing that our foreign Bishops
should not have valued them and should have treated them so crudely in spite of
all the acts and the whole unifying tendency which was just expressed by
Metropolitan Vitaly at the last Sobor. The whole tragedy lies in the fact that
even the latter wanted to construct everything solely on foreign forces that do
not have the information necessary to decide problems which are strange and
unfamiliar to them. Therefore they do not want to offer this [task] to the new
forces that have arisen in
“As a result, we are presented with the
complete liquidation of these healthy forces. This is a great victory of the
dark forces of our Soviet enemies of Orthodoxy in the persons of the Moscow
Patriarchate.
“I am glad that you will not give in to them, and I pray God that He
help you to carry on the Orthodox cause, apparently without the apostate forces
of Orthodox Abroad…”[147]
This action, which transgressed Canons 27,
28 and 96 of the Council of Carthage on the trial of bishops, was the last
straw for the much-suffering FROC bishops. In March, 1995 the THCA was
rehabilitated under the leadership of Archbishop Valentine, and on March 14 the
THCA resolved to denounce the Act signed by the Russian Bishops at the
Hierarchical Council in France in November, 1994; to declare the bans on the
Russian bishops as contrary to the holy canons and therefore not to be obeyed;
to consider the actions of Bishop Eutyches and his report to the Synod of ROCOR
of January 30 to be an intentional and slanderous provocation; to consider the
ROCOR Synod’s attempt to declare the dioceses of the Russian bishops “widowed”
as absurd, and their attempt to fill these sees while their bishops are still
alive as a transgression of 16th Canon of the First-and-Second
Council of Constantinople.[148]
The mission
of ROCOR to
As if to
accentuate the failure of ROCOR, fires destroyed the cathedrals of Metropolitan
Vitaly and Archbishop Anthony of
In May,
1995, summoning his last strength, Bishop Gregory went to Suzdal, received
communion from Bishop Valentine and publicly for the last time expressed his
support for the FROC (now called the
At about the same
time, frightened by the threat of defrocking by the ROCOR Synod, Archbishop
Lazarus and his vicar, Bishop Agathangelus, left the FROC and returned,
“repenting”, to ROCOR[151],
which restored Lazarus to the status of a ruling bishop in October, 1996.
However, in accordance with a resolution of the Hierarchical Synod of ROCOR in
1996, the Hierarchical Conference of the Russian Bishops inside
The reason for Lazarus’ “repentance” is not far to find. As we have
seen, he was the first instrument - and the first beneficiary - of ROCOR’s
policy of “divide and rule” towards the
But his return to ROCOR did not mean better times for his flock in the
On
In 1999, the Synod of the FROC (now officially called the Russian
Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC)) clarified its position on the MP, declaring:
“A resolution was passed concerning the hierarchs and representatives of the
clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate who received their rank through the mediation
of the authorities and organs of State Security. In relation to such it was
decided that every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy ANATHEMA should be
proclaimed, using the following text: ‘If any bishops, making use of secular
bosses, have seized power in the Church of God and enslaved Her, let those and
those who aid them and those who communicate with them without paying heed to
the reproaches of the Law of God, be ANATHEMA.”[154]
At this point ROAC was probably the most canonical Church structure in
The
Florinites Divide Again
The year 1995 was truly an annus
horribilis for the
In 1995 five Matthewite bishops in
On
In May, 1996, Maximus, without the
knowledge of the other bishops, but with the collaboration of Demetrius Biffe,
a clergyman of the new calendarists, who made his appearance as Bishop of
Kandano, consecrated the following new hierarchs: 1) Auxentius Marines of
Aegina, 2) Pancratius Xouloges of Nemea) and 3) Ephraim Papadopoulos of Serres.
Also, Demetrius Biffe was named Archbishop of Crete, and altogether they formed
a new Synod. Meanwhile, the former colleagues of Maximus - Ephraim of Boston,
Macarius of Toronto and Photius of France, together with Athanasius of Larissa,
formed a separate Synod under the name of “The Holy Orthodox Church in
A third schism – this time among the
Florinites - was prepared by a series of events.[157]
First, in 1993 the two American Bishops Paisius and Vincent, having made an
unsuccessful attempt to join the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, turned back to the
Florinite Synod – but not “through the front door”, that is, the Archbishop,
but “through the back door, the “Gerontian” fraction within the Synod.
Secondly, as a result of the confusion
created by Paisius and Vincent, their fellow-hierarch in
The Gerontian fraction was further
strengthened at about this time by the support of Metropolitan Anthony of
Megara, who had been given assistance when in
At this point, however, the Gerontians
suffered a major blow: their leader, Metropolitan Gerontius, died in November,
1994. Euthymius now lost his major supporter in the Synod. But in partial
compensation, control of the powerful corporation ‘The General Fund of the
Church of the True Orthodox Christians of Greece’ passed to Metropolitan
Callinicus (Khaniotes) of Thaumakou, who was a supporter of Euthymius.
With the death of Gerontius, the election
of a new bishop for his see of the
We come now to the last meeting of the
Synod before the schism. Since the Gerontian faction had repeatedly prevented
the working of the
Having control of the General Fund, to
which the offices of the Synod in Canningos 32 belonged, Euthymius and Paisius
now led the Gerontian faction to “continue the cut-off session of the Holy
Synod” under the presidency of Metropolitan Callinicus of Thaumakou and
Phthiotis. To this end they – that is, the six bishops: Callinicus of
Phthiotis, Euthymius of Thessalonica, Stephen of Chios, Justin of Euripus,
Paisius of America and Vincent of Aulon - sent a telegram to Archbishop
Chrysostom, calling him the leader of “Calliopian faction” and telling him that
they were removing him from the presidency of the Holy Synod! The telegram,
consisting of one enormous sentence, read as follows: “After your repeated
anti-synodical actions, and your refusal to allow an expert canonist and
professor of inter-Orthodox renown[158]
to take part in the hearing of the affair of Metropolitan Euthymius of
Thessalonica in order to avoid excesses in attempts to slander honourable
hierarchs and the promotion of the tactic of expelling hierarchs who are
fighters [for the faith], like the blessed Bishop Callistus, and the seizure of
the whole ecclesiastical administration by the three coup d’état
hierarchs who are your closest collaborators and advisers [Calliopius of
Pentapolis, Callinicus of Achaia and Matthew of Oinoe are meant], and to avoid
the deliberate reintroduction of the matter of [Paisius’ and Vincent’s joining]
Jerusalem, which has already been reviewed by the Synod, as well as the
rehabilitation of the Bishop of Astoria, who has abandoned the confession of
the synodical hierarchs[159],
we have decided, in accordance with the divine and sacred canons (those that
have been so badly violated by you and your evilly-motivated collaborators), to
break off communion with you and with them, not recognizing your right to preside
over the remainder of your [sic] Holy Synod which sits at Canningos 32.”
It goes without saying that this telegram,
as the “Callinicites” themselves later recognized, did not begin to be a
canonical deposition of Archbishop Chrysostom. And it is clear, both from the
text of the telegram and its timing, that its real motivation (their supposed
motivation was the allegedly dictatorial behaviour of the archbishop, his
convening synodal sessions and cancelling them at will, and not carrying out
resolutions passed by the Synod as a whole but displeasing to the “Callistite”
minority (i.e. Calliopius of Pentapolis, Callinicus of Achaia and Matthew of
Oinoe)) – was the desire to protect Euthymius from a canonical trial. This
action was very reminiscent of that of the leaders of HOCNA in 1986, when they
left ROCOR just before the trial of Archimandrite Panteleimon.
(This similarity between the Callinicites
and HOCNA is not coincidental. In 1999 the two Synods tried to unite.
Naturally, the Callinicites overlooked the moral charges against HOCNA, while
HOCNA agreed that Auxentius’ depositions of Callinicus and Euthymius were “an
internal matter that should be dealt with by our Sacred Synod [which?] and need
not appear on the common statement.” However, the proposed union broke down
over the Callinicites’ insistence that they should have the right to examine
the consecrations performed by Auxentius since 1985 “upon the petition of the
ordinands”. HOCNA, believing itself to be the lawful successor of Auxentius’
Synod, could not accept to place themselves in the position of petitioners…[160])
The Callinicites’ claim that Euthymius had
been subjected to an unjust witch-hunt was not at all convincing. The present
writer has seen a book composed of seventy-five signed testimonies
against Euthmyius. Even if many or even most of these testimonies were forged
or “bought”, as the Callinicites claimed, the very large number of testimonies
surely constituted a powerful prima facie reason for convening a trial[161]
in which their validity or otherwise could be determined, and the question of
Euthymius’s guilt or innocence could be finally resolved. Besides, a Synodical
trial was the only way to resolve what had become a nation-wide scandal that
was harming the Church terribly.
On July 18 the Holy Synod,
meeting in the
On the next day, the Chrysostomite Synod
met again to pass judgement on the former Metropolitan Euthymius,
excommunicating him for his moral transgressions.
On
”Rescind all resolutions on both sides
that took place after the division,… in particular on the one side the resolution
to remove the archiepiscopate of the Archbishop,… and on the other the clearly
uncanonical defrockings and bans.
“After the rescinding of the above
resolutions… have a general session of all the Synodal Bishops at which, after
mutual repentance and forgiveness, they set about resolving the unresolved
questions…
“In conclusion we should like to note that
now whatever group does not offer a willing hand of unity to the other will in
the final analysis bear responsibility for the strengthening of the division
before God and history.”[162]
On
This was a very promising start… However,
immediately after this confession of guilt, he began to accuse the
Chrysostomites of not extending a helping hand to them, and said that if “we
are to blame for the creation of the separation, the continuation of the
break-up makes you infinitely more to blame, especially after our sincere
public declaration of our feelings for conciliation and union.” Then he
appeared to retract his confession of guilt, claiming that they, the
Callinicites, were only “said” to be the cause of the problem: “Christ and His
Church – clergy and laity – ask for justice, not only for us, who are said to
be the ‘creators’ of the crisis, but more so for you, who formed the basic
presuppositions of the separation and completely reject your brothers’ offering
to cure this evil.” Then, having previously asserted that he and his fellows
were “completely” responsible for the schism, Callinicus went on to claim that
it was not only they, but also the Chrysostomites, who conspired: “Your
Beatitude, let’s not deceive ourselves: you conspired, and we conspired, not
yesterday or the day before, but for a long time.” Finally, he ended with the
threat that if Archbishop Chrysostom rejected this offer of reconciliation, the
responsibility for the schism would be on his Synod.
Metropolitan Callinicus here wrote as if
the schism were merely a personal quarrel that had not resulted in an
ecclesiastical schism and formal defrockings, but could be resolved by a mutual
agreement to overlook everything that had happened! But the Chrysostomite Synod
was by no means obliged to restore the defrocked bishops. Having confessed that
they were guilty of schism, it was hardly fitting for the Callinicites to
accuse the Chrysostomites of something even worse if they did not simply ignore
it!
The Callinicite Archimandrite Nectarius
(Yashunsky) expressed moral outrage at the fact that the Chrysostomites
expressed joy at the Church being cleansed of “unworthy brethren”, which
allowed them “to open a new page” in the life of the Church. But the
Chrysostomite Synod – and all True Orthodox Christians everywhere - had good
reason to rejoice that the Church had been cleansed of a most serious moral
offender, Euthymius, the cause of a major schism in the
The Chrysostomite bishops could also
rejoice at the departure of Paisius and Vincent, whose ecumenist sympathies had
been obvious for some time, and whose relations with their fellow-bishop in
A general reunion of “Chrysostomites” and
“Callinicites” without preconditions or the attaching of any blame to anyone
would have been as short-lived and hypocritical as the
“Auxentiite-Gerontian-Callistite” union of 1985. One further misdemeanour of
Euthymius would have destroyed it just as surely as one further misdemeanour of
Auxentius (in relation to Tsakos) destroyed the union of 1995. Better a
division, regrettable as it may be, than an attempt to reconcile the
irreconcilable.
This was essentially the reason why
Acacius and Gabriel did not follow Chrysostom into the new Synod he led from
1986. They saw that the conditions for genuine synodal government of the Church
simply did not exist while certain powerful but evil bishops remained within
it. Gabriel died in isolation, but Acacius joined the Chrysostomites in 2003…
In May, 2003 almost the whole episcopate
and clergy of the Callinicites officially withdrew their repentance for the
creation of the schism of 1995, even declaring: “We are grateful [!!!] to those
daring bishops who declared the ‘Archbishop’ and the unrepentant triad
excommunicated, saving the Church from more adventures and humiliation.”[164]
This statement actually confirmed the
wisdom of the Chrysostomites in not immediately giving in to the Callinicite
offer of reconciliation in 1995. Clearly the Callinicites’ stated acceptance of
“complete responsibility” for the schism had been insincere and a ploy, a means
of extracting concessions which they could not obtain in any other way….
The
Schism Develops
In any case, the “Callinicites” began to
divide almost immediately. In the Piraeus Stephen, Paisius and Vincent formed
one group, and in Thessalonica Callinicus, Euthymius, Athanasius and Justin
formed another. On
In April, 1996 Callinicus and Euthymius
bought the fourth floor of Canningos 32, and consecrated new bishops: Macarius
(Kavvakides), who was later elected archbishop of their new synod, Anthimus
(Karamitros) and Christopher (Angelopoulos), who had been defrocked for
immorality by the Patriarch of Jerusalem before being received into the Church
by Auxentius. Meanwhile, the other bishops under the presidency of Athanasius
occupied the third floor of the same building and in October consecrated two
new bishops for
In January, 1997 Metropolitan Peter of
In the same month, Archimandrite Niphon,
who was the spiritual father of some people in the Chrysostomite parishes in
the Lamia region and appeared to be a fervent supporter of Archbishop
Chrysostom[165],
approached Metropolitan Callinicus of the Twelve Islands in Athens and asked
him to join with Athanasius of Acharnae (who was not then a member of the
Synod) to consecrate him to the episcopate. Callinicus refused. But Niphon
would obtain his ambition later…
In May, Vincent, “weeping and groaning”,
handed over the seal of the Metropolia of Piraeus and
In January, 1998 Athanasios of Acharnae
returned to the Chrysostomite Synod. In the same month Calliopius of Pentapolis
died. In this period many priests were returning to the Chrysostomite Synod.
In February, 1998 Archimandrite Paul
(Stratigeas), former Chancellor of the
In June, 1998 the “General Fund” returned
into the hands of the Chrysostomite Synod, together with the offices of the
Synod on the third floor of Canningos 32. Confusion was now created by the fact
that the two rivals Synods calling themselves “The Church of the True Orthodox
Christians of Greece” occupied two floors of the same building. In the summer
of 1996, the Chrysostomite Synod had obtained a decision in the
However, the Callinicites saw a much more
sinister motive in the Chrysostomite action. Thus Archimandrite Nectarius
quoted the words of the Chrysostomite Synod in 1996 that “from now on nobody
else has the right to use this name. Otherwise our Church will be forced to
seek to defend itself in the courts”[167],
and chose to see hidden in the last words, “seek to defend itself in the
courts” “a greater meaning than may appear at first sight, for the
Chrysostomites were thinking of no more and no less than entering the Greek
state on equal terms with the new calendarists and becoming, so to speak, ‘a
second state church’. With this end, [writes Bishop Macarius of Petra,] ‘on
June 4, 1998 a delegation of the above-mentioned Synod [consisting of
Archbishop Chrysostom, Metropolitan Callinicus of Achaia and two
archimandrites], inspired by a false Protestant theory of group freedom of conscience,
according to which those having the same faith have the right, on uniting with
each other, to express it in common services, employing the protection of the
government, renounced the Orthodox world-view that the Church of the True
Orthodox Christians of Greece is a Local One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church of Christ, and proclaimed that the Church of the Old Calendarists is a
religious community! And they asked for the State’s ‘lawful protection’ in
liquidating all the True Orthodox Christians who do not belong to them!! (op.
cit., p. 8). One involuntarily thinks of Sergius Stragorodsky and his
legalization of his Synod with the consequent liquidation of those not
belonging to him (however, one must give the Greeks their due – here they were
not talking about physical ‘liquidation’).”
Both Bishop Macarius’ incoherent and
incomprehensible reference to a “Protestant theory of group freedom” (what
theory?!) and Fr. Nectarius’ reference to Sergius Stragorodsky are quite out of
place here. The registration of a legal name with the authorities was not
sinful in itself. The
Archimandrite Niphon declared that “the
making of the True Orthodox Church of Greece into a corporation [sic!]
generally overthrows the basic dogmas, abolishes the canons, violates Holy
Tradition and, in a word, turns everything upside down for the sake of
receiving [the status of] a juridical person”[168]?
But this was surely a wild exaggeration and distortion. Moreover, to call it a
“Protestant heresy” was unjust even to the Protestants since, as far as the
present writer knows, the Protestant doctrine of “the invisible Church of all
believers” does not assert the identity of the Church with any visible
organization or legal corporation! The very fact that the constitution of the
corporation said that the Church of Christ was founded on the Day of Pentecost
by the Lord Jesus Christ, whereas the corporation itself was founded on
such-and-such a day and month and year by 20 people, and could be “liquidated”
by a quorum of members, shows that no identification of the Church with the
legal corporation was intended. Besides, in every jurisdiction of the True
Orthodox Christians almost every church and monastery has some kind of legal
corporation. Why should these be “lawful, canonical and allowed by the Church”,
in Bishop Macarius’ words, while the Chrysostomite legal corporation
constitutes “a Protestant ecclesiological heresy that appeared after the
proclamation of liberty of conscience by the
The Callinicites also saw a sinister
Protestant heresy in the “Constitutional Charter” which the Chrysostomites,
after prolonged consultation that produced few objections, established in
September, 1998. The most important points in the Charter, a legal document
registered with the civil authorities of Greece, were: (a) all property,
monastic or parish, was concentrated in the hands of the Synod; (b) monasteries
were denied the right to own property; (c) hieromonks were prohibited from serving
in parishes without special permission from their ruling hierarchs, even when
the parish was opened by the monastery; and (d) between Synodal sessions the
Archbishop was given the right to make decisions on his own, although the Synod
had the right to agree or disagree with his decisions at the next meeting[170];
(a) went against the prevailing tradition in Greece, where parishes and
monasteries are allowed to own their property independent of their bishop.
However, it is not contrary to the holy canons, which decree that “the Bishop
have authority over the property of the Church” (Apostolic Canon 41).
The leader in the attack on the Charter
was Archimandrite Niphon, who, as we have seen, was seeking a way to join the
Callinicites and receive consecration there. He was supported in the background
by the Callinicite Bishop Macarius and the Athonite Elder Augustine, a former
lawyer.
Niphon had another motive: the Synod had
refused him permission to found a metochion under his sole control in
the
He was; and in November, 1998 Niphon left
the Synod with Metropolitans Athanasius of Acharnae and Callinicus of the
At the present time the Callinicites (now
renamed “Macariites” because of their new archbishop, Macarius) have about
sixteen priests in
In July, 1999 Metropolitan Matthew of
Oinoe died suddenly, This persuaded Archbishop Chrysostom to proceed to the
consecration of new bishops in August: Gerontius of Piraeus and
Archimandrite Nectarius was on firmer ground when he criticised the Chrysostomite Synod for seeking reconciliation with ROCOR during the late 1990s in spite of ROCOR’s continued communion with Cyprian of Fili, whom the Chrysostomites had defrocked. This was pushed especially by Metropolitan Paul of Astoria, who in 1999 criticised Fr. Nectarius, then a Chrysostomite cleric, for receiving someone from ROCOR, although he had not even been chrismated. Moreover, in 1998 there was an agreement between the two Synods not to receive clergy from each other’s jurisdiction without certificates of release. In earl