Relations between the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

OCA Holy Synod of Bishops blesses Joint Statement of OCA, ROCOR Commissions
Posted 12/14

SYOSSET, NY [OCA] -- At their fall session held at the Chancery of the Orthodox Church in America here November 16-18, 2010, the members of the Holy Synod of Bishops gave their blessing to the Joint Statement of the Commissions of the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, titled "Relations Between the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The Joint Statement was drafted by members of the OCA and ROCOR Commissions at a their meeting in Sea Cliff, NY October 5-6, 2010. [See http://www.oca.org/news/2289 and http://www.oca.org/news/2285 for background information.] The text was submitted to, and received the blessing of, the OCA and ROCOR hierarchs.

The text of the Joint Statement reads as follows.



Relations between the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
Joint Statement of the Commissions

of the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+

October 5-6, 2010
The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) share a single origin – the local Church of Russia – and a long history on the North American continent. It was the Russian Church that first sent missionaries to America, established the first parishes, sent the first bishops and established the first dioceses. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, the North American Diocese of the Russian Church was the principal canonical ecclesiastical authority here, and although there were clergy and parishes of differing cultures and languages, many were in the archpastoral care of the bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore, there is no question that the formation of multiple jurisdictions on this continent was largely due to the ecclesiastical chaos that ensued after the Revolution of 1917.

The life and witness of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century was marked by violent persecution at the hands of the totalitarian atheist Bolshevik regime brought to power by the communist revolutionaries in 1917. The decades of persecution included the martyrdom of bishops, priests, monastics, and lay people in overwhelming numbers and in numerous killing fields and gulags. Thousands of churches and monasteries were desecrated and destroyed. The voice of the church was silenced in the public arena. Charitable and educational ministries were made illegal. In the midst of massive anti-religious campaigns and by means of unjust laws religious believers, both clergy and lay, were deprived of their rights and put on the margins of society as objects of derision and discrimination.

The decades of persecution were a time of human suffering and genocidal cruelty. These years were also a time of witness to Christ and faithfulness unto death. What the Russian Orthodox Church endured during Soviet rule affected Church life outside Russia.

In the Diocese of the Aleutians and North America, the loss of contact with the Church of Russia and the loss of support from Russia created confusion and even chaos in the midst of uncertainty. From this turmoil emerged the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America (popularly known as the North American Metropolia), which is today the Orthodox Church in America.

For the millions of refugees fleeing from revolution and civil war in Russia and settling in the Balkans and Western Europe, in Asia and the Americas and Australia, there was need to find comfort and support within Church life under new circumstances.

With regard to the situation of the clergy and parishes of the Russian Church that were found abroad, there were two distinct directions that evolved. The first was the striving for a unified central Church Administration which could oversee the ecclesiastical life abroad until conditions would change in the homeland and the Patriarchate, independent of Soviet control, could be restored. The second was the striving toward the establishment of a completely independent self-administered Orthodox Church in North America.

These two directions are the essence of the conflict between the bishops, clergy and parishes which would become the Orthodox Church in America and the bishops, clergy and parishes which would remain part of a central Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

However, even after the rupture of relations that occurred at the 7th All American Sobor in 1946, there were periods of close collaboration and mutual support between the North American Metropolia and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Even when the close collaboration faltered, support and welcome to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was offered by the American Metropolia in the period when the Synod of ROCOR bishops moved from Europe to the United States.

On December 11, 1950, a joint meeting of the Metropolitans Anastassy and Leonty and bishops of the Metropolia and ROCOR was held in New York. As noted in the official Minutes of ROCOR’s Council of Bishops, the Metropolia and ROCOR hierarchs had during their meeting “unanimously recognized that the sad fact of ecclesiastical separation causes significant damage to the holy cause of Christ’s Church: it weakens the preaching of Orthodoxy, undermining Church discipline and a sense of responsibility among clergy of the Church, is a temptation for the faithful, diminishes the prestige of the Church in the heterodox world and makes more difficult its struggle with militant atheism. It was unanimously determined that the Church's unity is necessary.”

Those Minutes also note that: “after the discussion of practical ways for achieving Church unity the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in conjunction with the bishops of the American Metropolitan See, accordingly recognized that the most appropriate path for that time was the preservation of the existing organizations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the American Metropolia, which will exist in parallel, but will be in close fraternal cooperation between themselves, periodically calling meetings of hierarchs of both Church organizations to resolve common or contentious issues with a firm hope that further ways to more closely achieve canonical unity with God's help will be provided by life itself.”

After the meeting of the two first hierarchs and members of their Synods, the Great Council of Bishops of the North American Metropolia issued an Archpastoral Epistle dated December 2/15, 1950, which included the following statement:

“Let enmity between brothers be abolished and let mutual respect be established on the basis of our mutual acceptance of the co-existence of two paths for the Church in this country, one permanent and one temporary, which are the result of the exceptional sufferings of our time, full of terrible events, and forebodings, imperiously demanding from all the greatest submission to the Lord, the greatest brotherly love and moral support for each other. This does not break, but further strengthens the historical path of our Metropolia.

“What happened after the close of the Council on December 11, i.e. Metropolitan Anastassy twice visiting our newly elected primate at the Holy Protection Cathedral, and the talk that we bishops had which took place the same evening with the hierarchs of the Russian jurisdiction Outside of Russia who visited us, determines the possibility of peaceful life in parallel, subject to internal mutual respect and clear delineation of our canonical rights and historical foundations. The Russian Church Outside of Russia has its own flock in America as well. She has spread her wanderers’ tent in this country, too. Let the peace of God be with its zealous hierarchs, its kind shepherds and its laity!

“Let brotherly love prevail, and let mutual forgiveness of past wrongs be accomplished. The American Metropolia wishes to live in peace with these brethren as well, based on the temporary presence of their hierarchical administration on the territory of America until the future free All-Russian Local Council.

“No treaties or agreements protect this decision of our Church coexistence. It rests upon the requirements of life itself and the clear precepts of the Savior: "By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, if ye have love for one another" (John 13:35).

“The clear and unconditional definition of our own canonical path, made at the 8th All-American Sobor, requires us to have an attitude of brotherly love toward those who, while wishing to preserve their temporarily separate ecclesiastical administrative organization next to ours, are our brothers in Christ.”
Despite these mutual efforts toward establishing brotherly relations, the paths of the Church Outside of Russia and the American Metropolia continued to be separate.

In 1970, by recognizing the self-governing status of the Metropolia with the granting of the Tomos of Autocephaly, eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and the American Metropolia was restored and reconciliation was achieved.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the deep and extensive changes in Russia with the renewal of church life, the restoration of thousands of churches and monasteries, the freedom to bear public witness to the Gospel in Russian society, a process of dialogue between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate led to the restoration of canonical unity through the Act of Canonical Communion in 2007.

It is now time for the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to declare together in the spirit of mutual repentance and mutual forgiveness that we are committed to living together as brothers in Christ and as sister Churches, and to sharing a common witness to the Gospel of Christ and the Holy Orthodox Faith. This common witness should most clearly and most fully be expressed in eucharistic communion.

In addition, we see the need to work together in harmony on joint projects, such as pastoral education, parish schools, student outreach, translations of services, ministering to the poor and needy, and missionary efforts. To work in harmony we will need to reflect together on theological, pastoral, and liturgical issues which we face in our ministry in North America. We also affirm the need to examine together and develop a common understanding of the historical record concerning our churches. These hopes and endeavors can be encouraged and advanced through periodic meetings of our first hierarchs, bishops, clergy and laity to discuss matters of mutual concern, including those theological, liturgical and pastoral issues.

We are committed to the processes and goals expressed in the Chambesy accords of June 2009, specifically the active participation of both our Churches in the regional Episcopal Assembly as we strive to achieve Orthodox unity on this continent.

The following text from the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Ephesians is addressed to us, and therefore to the believers of the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia: “I … beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all” (Ephesians 4: 1-6).

We ask for the intercession and blessing of the Holy Hierarch Tikhon, Patriarch and Confessor of Moscow and Enlightener of North America and all the saints who have shone forth on this continent as we labor “for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4: 12).

OCA Commission

Bishop TIKHON of Philadelphia
and Eastern Pennsylvania (Chair)

Archpriest Leonid Kishkovsky
Archpriest Alexander Garklavs
Archpriest John Erickson
Igumen Alexander (Pihach)
Alexis Liberovsky (consultant) ROCOR Commission

Bishop GEORGE of Mayfield (Chair)

Archimandrite Luke (Murianka)
Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff
Archpriest David Moser
Priest Peter Jackson
Archpriest Seraphim Gan (consultant)

A Russian translation of the text may be found at http://www.synod.com/synod/2010/12rocorocastatement.html."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.oca.org/news/2353



Tserkovnye Vekhi Responds:

Christ is Born! Give Ye Him Glory!

Beloved Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

We should be thankful to the Mother Church for coordinating this new era of pan-Russian Orthodox unity in North America. Such events as the restoration of Communion between Russian Orthodox brothers are blessed occurences, even when the auspices and personages associated with these events are less than ideal. While such an event inspires us to not only support such a step at unity but to broaden its scope to include other jurisdictions functioning in North America. Great opportunities for the Russian Orthodox mission await.

As a rejoinder to the OCA commentary on this joyous occasion, it is necessary to note that, no, the FICTION of an OCA feverishly seeking to derussify itself and create an American fiction out of a Russian (or post Russian) immigrant reality is shockingly appalling to read "as an official history" here YET AGAIN. While it is true that the ultimate goal of the Russian mission was and is A NORTH AMERICAN LOCAL CHURCH (As opposed to an "autocephaly" seemingly annulled with the latest concordats with the Phanariots), it must be reiterated that these things don't artificially transpire or "spontaneously coalesce by a fiat declared in conjuncition with Nikodimites" but are the result of a natural process of RETENTION of the core of believers of ones missions and the broadening of their ranks with native populations (and generations) on the missionary territory on which they function.

Disparaging RUSSIAN HERITAGE MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY IN THE OCA, and this occasion should be taken to not only ratify a better relationship with ROCOR but with the entire RUSSIAN Orthodox (AND "Orthodox Traditionalist" or "Authentic" or "Catacomb" or "Old Rite," etc.) immigrant community, within and without the OCA, to express regrets for the disturbingly unwarranted "Americanizations" which only engendered the most myopic of russophobias and created a climate of alienation which has resulted in the nullification OF THE MISSIONARY ROLE the Mother Church has assigned to its NORTH AMERICAN DAUGHTER. Loss of ones core of believers and 80%+ (and still declining!) of its membership is something for the OCA to lament and overcome. An embarassing era of OCA "nativism" has cost the Orthodox mission in this nation, on this continent, and it must be addressed satisfactorily if the OCA is to survive.

With ROCOR, many historical issues of cessation of intercommunion with the OCA still remain in regularizing the North American mission:

1). Renovationism, liturgical, canonical, theological, Patristic, Scriptual and otherwise. It must be cemented in the minds of all THAT THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ANATHEMIZES ALL INNOVATIONS (it also condemns musical instruments in Orthodox worship).
2). Ecumenism and sectarian "dialogues" with the heterodox which have resulted in HERETICAL ecclesiological "concordats," crypto-Uniatism (Something the OCA was initially created to combat), HERETICAL ecclesiologies and endorsements of such SECTARIAN documents as the WCC's BEM, and a general denominationalist approach to Orthodox identity and purpose in North America. It is not without reason that the OCA has blunted its message and become BANAL in proferring a model of an "ACCEPTED POST RUSSIAN AMERICAN (RUSSOPHOBIC) DENOMINATION" "adapting to the American religious mainstream" which SECTARIANs like Fr. Kishkovsky (and Fr. LebedeV) envision as a "fellow denomination."
3). Not only a spiritual immaturity, but a total immaturity in approach to catechizing and churching both "cradle" and "convert" Orthodox Christians. The OCA as it has imploded has disastrously lost what resources and institutions it even had. Moreover, it remains a "post Russian" (not ethnically American!) body primarily as opposed to a LOCAL expression of Orthodoxy. There is no American Orthodoxy even in sight. Sadly, the OCA offers no acceptible paradigms for its advent.
4). New Calendarism. Lack of liturgical unity and rejection of the Holy Canons of Nicea for the ROBBER SYNOD of 1923, which even the Greek churches have in actuality abrogated (viz. RESTORATION OF THE JULIAN PASCHALION, REJECTION OF SECOND MARRIAGES FOR PRIESTS AND DEACONS AND A MARRIED EPISCOPATE, RETENTION OF BEARDS, CASSOCKS, ORTHODOX FASTING, FOREGOING DENIGRATION OF MONASTICISM, etc.) emphasizing that this 1923 Phanariot convention of Greek Renovationists is at best DUBIOUS by the very fact the Greek Robbers have themselves UNILATERALLY "uncanonically" altered and postponed its decisions. If they don't even respect their schismatic and heretical innovations, how can we?! There are no canonical grounds for the IMPOSITION of the Calendar Reform in the OCA while the fact the Mother Church retains the Orthodox Calendar makes this act at very least quasi-schismatic.

Yes, it is true that St. Tikhon felt it both possible and even necessary to implement a "new calendar" for Western missions, but when he learned the auspices of the way the current GREEK calendar reform was implemented, he ANNULLED the adoption of it by the Russian church and condemned it as "uncanonical" and an "INNOVATION WHICH PRECIPITATES SCHISM." The witness of such luminaries as St. Alexis Mechev is clear in relating the Russian church's reasons for non-adoption and condemnation of the GREEK calendar reform. The theological writing and acumen of St. Seraphim of Bulgaria cements it.

Likewise, the OCA with its first hierarchs from Metropolitan Platon to Metropolitan Leonty to even Metropolitan Ireney were at best "UNCOMFORTABLE" with the prospect of a calendar reform and generally patently opposed to it as something which "promoted unnecessary disharmony and divisions" (ie schism). It must be noted that when it was propagandized in the OCA in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that noteable hierarchs like the Bishops of S. Canaan and of Alaska openly called it "UNWARRANTED" and "SCHISM."

Thus its implementation has proven UNCANONICAL, SCHISMATIC, ruinous and unscrupulous in the OCA. It has failed in its stated goal of "Americanization." While honouring the American federal holiday of Christmas in nowise means that a given community becomes illegitimate in observing the Orthodox celebration of this Feast on the Orthodox Calendar. Such an observance does not necessarily embody a celebration of "two Christmases," but merely a broadening of what in the West is usually understood as a festive season of "Christmastime." Moreover, simply instructing parishes to be sensitive to Orthodox observance of the Nativity by OFFERING Christmas services on the 7, January AS WELL (at a minimum) in no wise causes acrimony with a Western religious custom which observes Christmas until the 6, January traditionally. One more day only preserves the joy and sacredness of Christmas in the West. If anything, with the rise of a new militant secularism in North America, it acts as a statement for Christ and Christmas and aids in reaffirming the sacredness of the Christmas season FOR ALL AMERICANs. Just as a variant Paschalion for Orthodox Christians exists without any great stress on the missionary witness of Orthodoxy, so too Orthodox observance of Christmas can only make it holier FOR ALL!

It must also be remembered that the US federal holiday DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST but merely honours Him (and Christmas) as a profound moral teacher with universal secular significance. That is all. Thus, the christological implications for associating Orthodox worship with artificial standards of such "patriotism" become shockingly evident. Arius would cringe.

It is understood that in all cases restoring the Orthodox Calendar (at least summarily) could indeed cause unnecessary upheavals in a thoroughly failed OCA. But gradual restoration (at least for the OCA "post Russian" dioceses) by episcopal observances and monastic mandates could provide a better approach to settling this unnecessary division. Dioceses and parishes should be generally allowed to return to the Orthodox Calendar while statements should be issued that 1). The Mother Church views the calendar innovation as too controversial to implement & 2). The Mother Church awaits resolution of this issue when a future Synod of Ecumenical Character can address it. THUS 3). Prudence is dictated in both having the OCA favour the Orthodox Calendar, its restoration, BUT as an act of pastoral economy, retention of the GREEK calendar reform can be observed by ECONOMY by communities who otherwise would become divided by its abolition. BUT the issue is not settled and awaits an Orthodox consensus.

5). Freemasonry in North America, although condemned by both the OCA and ROCOR (and the Russian church as a whole), should be better addressed and further rejected, especially when there are even hierarchical temptations and scandals which have arisen in regard to its evil influences and doctrine.

6). Both the OCA and ROCOR (and the Patriarchal /MP/ Administration) should use this occasion to restore a COMMON organism of North American Orthodox unity. While a Russian emphasis may indeed be at best only marginal in necessity today, a need for a Traditional Orthodox mission remains and needs to be reinvigorated in ONE institution. This institution must act and act quickly to normalize its missionary work, its work in catechesis and churching of American Orthodox.

The Russian mission in North America needs to, yes, appreciate the historical identity of Russian Orthodoxy not as an "Eastern Slavic Orthodoxy" or phyletism, but a church at its outset which united Scandinavians (who ruled Rus'), Slavs (of all regionalisms), Finns, Balts, Khazars, Bulgars, Turks, Tartars, Avars (Hungarians), Roma, Caucasians even Germans in one common religious and cultural identity, respectful to the ethnic traditions of these people with a thrust to not "reinforce Russian cultural imperialism" but Rus' as a unifying center (post tribal, not at all "nationalist") affirming the fundamental Truth and doctrine of Orthodoxy AS THE ONE TRUE CHURCH.

That is what is fundamentally meant by Russian Orthodoxy (or its multi ethnic model which was observed in other historical churches such as the Church of Byzantium, Antioch, Alexandria, even Bulgaria). So Russian Orthodoxy IS NOT concerned with "preservation of the /Great/ Russian ethnos" but exists as a unifying force for disparate peoples in affirming Orthodoxy. In 988 AD, Rus' was a Russo-Scandinavian state, and multi-ethnic/cultural and lingual. So too an American outgrowth of Russian Orthodoxy as it is blessed by God and matures into a local church, which all of us Russian Orthodox in North America are called to accomplish TOGETHER. This means not an absorption into an ethnic Russian Orthodoxy, but, rather, an adaptation of its model of multi-ethnic unification and heritage. We need not be ashamed of SS Vladimir and Olga ever, Metropolitan Jonah! Nor do we need your venerations of Francis of Assisi, Therese of Lisieux or John of the Cross to be "legitimately" Western and Orthodox!

No, we need our OWN Cyrils and Methodiuses and our OWN holy rulers and ascetics and even martyrs and confessors HERE, ORTHODOX (not HERETICAL!) Saints. Metropolitan Jonah, Orthodoxy IS NOT CALLED TO SOME ECUMENIST AND "QUIET" UNIA /ANGLICAN COMPREHENSIVENESS/ AS YOU ADVOCATE AS AN UNCONVERTED SECTARIAN! Orthodoxy is called to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH FOR ALL MEN ALONE, the beauty, light, love and joy of the world.

Where Russian Orthodoxy is specifically a MORE FIT MODEL for America lies in the fact of its model of multi-ethnicity as opposed to the MODERN "neoGreek" model of cultural, political (and even racial) exclusivism. Yes, OCA propaganda was correct in assessing that cultural assimilation generationally makes ethnic subcultures unenduring paradigms BUT WRONG IN ASCRIBING THAT IDENTITY TO ITS RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY, ITS SHAME AT OUR COMMON HERITAGE. Thus, THE PRESCRIPTION OF THE AMERICANIZERS HAS DESTROYED THE OCA BASED ON AN IGNORANCE ROOTED IN A FALSE PREMISE. It is sad that most of the Americanizers in the OCA were at least partially of Russian heritage. Pathetic.

No, the ROCOR paradigm of a messianic diaspora is not realistic either. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being Russian until it intrudes on being Orthodox and converting the communities which surround our parishes into Orthodoxy. No Orthodox Church, inner city or rural or in Fr. Meyendorff's "ethnic ghettoes," CAN BE PERMITTED TO CLOSE but must simply spread the light of Christ where it is shining and welcome all with a loving embrace, in Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, or even English, Spanish, French or Vietnamese.

A common language has to be found for all, and a common language for theology, Patristics and liturgy must frame its basis. English (or Spanish) is the natural language of the majority and must be respected and presented in a dignified form in traditional worship. While the challenge of our seminaries and scholars is to forego Orthodoxy in Russian and Slavonic(Romanian/Serbian/Bulgarian, etc.) translation but to find a mode of instruction of Patristic Greek /Katherevousa/ in providing a universal tongue of scholarship and liturgy for our NATIVE Orthodoxy. Instead of Russo-Byzantinism, we are called to mature to an Amero-Byzantinism. There is nothing wrong with ethnic heritage, but we must realize that we are not building or restoring Russia (or any other faraway nation or empire). We are building and restoring Orthodoxy to the West and specifically to North America.

Thus we are called to consider ending ethnic divisions amongst the "jurisdictions" as well as overcoming "political" ones and continuing the work of ENDING the religious counterfeit of UNIA. That means calling what is left of certain communities to a COMMON and SHARED SINGLE mission in North American Orthodoxy:

1). Russians and Russian Dissidents.
2). Carpatho Russians, all Rusins.
3). Byelorussians.
4). Ukrainians (or "Little Russians").

But also:

5). Serbs.
6). Macedonians.
7). Bulgarians.
8). Albanians.
9). Romanians, Moldavians, Georgians, etc.

And also:

10). Uniates parasitizing Orthodox local churches and "jurisdictions" of every stripe. UNIA must be brought to an end, either by its TOTAL absorption by the Latins in its papal depravity or by the return of Uniates to the ONE TRUE CHURCH, Orthodoxy.

One church and ONE unity is necessary now, one TRADITIONAL AMERICAN LOCAL ORTHODOXY IN FORMATION. ONE NORTH AMERICAN LOCAL CHURCH.

While the approach of the Antiochians and their inclusion with us in ONE MISSION must be greeted with a special favour where 2nd., 3rd., 4th., 5th., 6th., etc. generations as well as new North American converts must be reached with a "kerygmatic" or "evangelical" activism coupled with traditional Orthodox churching and life. We aren't called to make America ethnic but to make America Orthodox and to frame a North American cultural and religious identity in Orthodoxy. The Antiochian approach can not only make us stronger but help us to reach those generationally lost for whatever reason and establish for us not only an "acceptance" but a "significance" and positive influence for all the peoples and governments of North America. A new symphonia and a more Apostolic model of Church-state interaction is not only necessary but possible for North America.

These observations are written to appreciate the restored intercommunion between "branches of the Russian church" and tempered by a love of and well wishing for a common and shared success for Orthodoxy in the West. Orthodoxy is the Pearl of Great Price, the Body of Christ, mystically redeeming the world in Him in the eschaton. It is the sole True Church and outside of it there can be no salvation, for salvation is the Church, is the thenthropic, mystagogical justification of humanity in Christ Jesus in the Eighth Day. Fr. Florovsky's words and emphasis ring ever more true and requisite for us and especially for the future today. Let us celebrate intercommunion and develop a new unity and a stronger missionary Orthodoxy. Let us celebrate this restoration of brotherhood and look forward to a future Feast of one North American Orthodoxy culminating in not only an autocephalous North American local church, but even a majority North American local church.

ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!

Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky, Tserkovnye Vekhi Blog

I Believe

By Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh

Source: http://www.mitras.ru/eng/


11 June 1985


In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.



What do we mean when we say that we believe? The word has become so weak. More often than not to believe means that we accept a proposition on trust and yet with a certain hesitation, with a degree of uncertainty: ‘I believe that he will come,’ ‘I believe he is right,’… How different this perception of believing is from the faith of Abraham or from the faith which the Son of God become the Son of man shows in mankind. Let us dwell one moment on Abraham who was called in the Old Testament “the father of all believers.”



The test came so clearly and could be such a lesson to us. He was promised a son in his old age and the son was born, and he grew, and the Lord had promised that this child would be the first of a vast race, as numerous as the sands of the shores, as many as the stars in heaven. And of a sudden when the child was already growing, when all hopes seemed to be ready to be fulfilled in him, when he was joy and expectation, the Lord gave his word, “Take this child, Abraham, take him onto the high mountain and bring him a blood offering to Me.” And here is the test not only in the fact that Abraham obeyed because he recognised the voice of the same Lord who had commanded him to leave his land and to go to the place that the Lord would reveal unto him, the test was even more acute. Was he going to believe God’s promise or God’s word? The promise could be misunderstood, the promise could be fulfilled differently. He did not know. What he knew for certain was that the Lord had spoken again and he trusted the Lord more than he trusted the promise he had been given. He left it to the Lord to find a solution to the problem that was insoluble for him. And the Lord did find the solution.



Now, no-one of us is put to the test in such a way. And yet, so often we are not prepared to accept God’s word to us because we think that God could not speak that way. We say that there must be something wrong in the way in which his words were reported, that we should use our intelligence, our judgment. The result being that we submit God’s word to our human judgment and not our human judgment to God’s own wisdom. And yet we might well know that the words of Isaiah the prophet are true throughout the ages, the words which God spoke to him, “My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts. My ways are so far above yours as My thoughts are above your thoughts. And so here we are confronted with sharpness by Abraham, by his unreserved, complete trust in God so different from our own attitude. Are we prepared to accept what Paul called ‘the folly of the preaching’, a preaching concerning ways and attitudes in this fallen, distorted world that seem not to solve its problems? Are we prepared to be fools for Christ’s sake, remembering that the folly of God is wiser than the sagacity of men and the wisdom of men? This applies to all our ways, to the way in which believe or not in the Gospel as it was proclaimed by the early Christian community. It applies also to our readiness to live according to the Gospel, to follow a way in a distorted world that is straight, to live in a way which is a scandal or a folly. Are we prepared for that?



I would like to give you an example, modern this time, of that kind of mad, foolish attitude.



I met in Russia a man, a priest who had spent thirty six years of his life in prison and in a concentration camp. To most of us it is either most of our lives, or half our lives, a very long term. He sat in front of me with eyes shining with wonder and said to me, “Do you realise how wonderfully good God has been to me? The Soviet authorities did not allow into prisons or camps priests or any kind of spiritual ministration. And God chose me, a young, inexperienced priest and sent me for thirty six years of my life to minister to the people who needed most of all to be looked after and to have a witness of God in their midst.” That is one who believed, that is one who took an act that otherwise could be understood as the brutality of the times, as something monstrous happening in our days, as an act of divine wisdom and an act of love not only to those who were also like him in prison or in a camp but to him. He deemed it a privilege to be allowed this ministry. Here is a man of faith, he did not try to oppose a passage of the Gospel or a line of the Scriptures to the will of God, to try to find a loophole or to find a way in which he could charge God with many years of suffering. He was a fool humanly speaking, he was wise in God.



And then I would like to attract your attention to the Lord himself. It is not his faith in the Father I want to speak about, it is His faith in man, in us. St. Paul is clear about it when he says, How would anyone die for his friends? but Jesus, the Son of God become the Son of men died for us while we still were God’s enemies, opposing His will, unfaithful, unwilling to follow the way of life which is narrow and hard at times. He had faith in us... This is one of the most extraordinary things one can experience - realise that God has faith in me. He created me knowing what I would be, and yet, He had faith that I would find the way, the way of life. He entrusted me with the knowledge of Him, He called me to be His disciple, and when I say “me” I mean each of us. God has faith in us. A friend of mine in a sermon said once, “When God looks at any of us, He does not see the virtues or the achievements which may well not be there, but what He does see is His own image in us”. Do we look at one another with faith?



You know, faith according to the XI chapter to the Epistles to the Hebrews is certainty concerning things unseen. To see the image of God in one’s neighbour is an act of faith that makes us followers of Christ because He looked at the harlot, at the sinner, at the tax-gatherer, at Zacchaeus and Matthew and in each of them He saw the possibility of salvation. One of the reasons why our world is so cold and so dark, and so painful is that very few believe in one another. We treat one another as though we were a precious painting that has been damaged by time, by moisture, by circumstances, by the folly of man, and we concentrate only on the damage - it is cut, is it slash, it is ugly, it’s almost destroyed. That is what we see. And God looks and sees what has survived of the unsurpassed beauty of His image and loves it.



And we could do the same quite easily. It would be so easy if we thought that our neighbour however damaged, profaned, made ugly, distorted by life in all its forms, whether it be heredity or education, or circumstances, that our neighbour is a holy image. Think of the way in which you would treat the photograph of your mother who had died, or your fiancé who had been killed in the war, or of a person whom you loved with all there was of love in you and you discovered that his photograph had decayed, had been ill-treated, perhaps, torn with hatred by someone. You would treat it with tenderness, the very wounds it bears would call for care. We would treat this photograph, as one would treat a badly wounded person. One wouldn’t say, “This person is wounded. How revolting this blood and these broken bones, and this flesh!” We would say, “Here is still life, he can live”. And we would give all our attention and love to this person. This is the way in which God sees us and believes in us. And this is the second half of the diptych - to say that we believe in God and don’t believe in those for whom He has given His life is a lie. It’s not true. St. John says that if we say that we love God and don’t love our neighbour we are liars. Well, we are; but in order to love our neighbour we must have faith in him, faith that all things are possible, that the most depraved, the most broken person can change. And indeed people do change. One can see that in so many ways when life is tragic. In the war, in accidents people whom we thought were totally incapable of any good suddenly show mercy and love and heroic courage.



So when we speak of faith and of believing we must learn to believe in the way in which the early Christians believed. Take St. Barnabas. It was reported to him that Saul, the persecutor had come blinded by a vision and everyone probably said, “Don’t come near him, don’t you know that he came, he was on his way to destroy everything that we are building. He is a hater of Christ.” Barnabas believed in him, he went to see him, he called him his brother, not Cain but a brother in Christ, and he restored the sight of Paul and gave him to know Christ and sent him on his glorious missionary journey. He believed in him because God had believed in him first.



And think of so many people who in the Gospel or in the Acts are believers. Take for instance the man who said, “I believe, Lord, help my lack of faith!” How often we would be right to speak that way recognising that we lack this total certainty and yet that there is in us a flicker of hope, that we are ready to believe and yet we are afraid of believing - what if my faith is not met by God’s mercy? We can say, each of us, “I believe, Lord, help my unbelief!” But we must then believe. What did this father believe in? I think what he believed in was what he saw in the Lord Jesus Christ. He saw in His eyes infinite, divine compassion. He did not see the power of the magician, Christ was no magician, but he saw love, and because he saw love, he saw that everything is possible.



Now, we should be able to be to people around us an occasion for that kind of faith. People should meeting us, see in us that love which that man found in Christ. They should see compassion, they should see that we believe in them even against all evidence. And then they also could believe through us in God and through God in mankind and in life. Then they could, like Thomas, say, “My Lord and my God!” and have no doubt anymore. So that faith is an act of heroic trust, faith is an act of faithfulness to God’s word and to God’s person, faith is also the certainty which is born from that kind of experience. Let us read in the Gospel the passages where we can find faith revealed and ask ourselves, “How did these men and women find this degree of trust in God?” And we will discover that we also possess enough evidence to believe; only we imagine that believing is something so extraordinary, it is the condition of the saints. No, it is the condition of normal, ordinary, sinful people, who can give their trust to God, obey and then discover that they were not insane in doing this.


http://www.pravmir.com/article_1153.html

Patriarch's meeting with Pope getting nearer - Metropolitan Hilarion

Moscow, November 26, Interfax - The meeting between the Moscow Patriarch and the Pope is getting nearer each day, the Russian Orthodox Church said.

"Each day brings us closer to this meeting between the Pope and Patriarch," head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, told journalists in Moscow.

"Right now we are not prepared to make known the date, nor are we engaged in any concrete preparations for the meeting, but we are certainly getting closer to it. It is a calendar and astronomical fact," he said.

The work carried out by the Russian Church with the Catholic Church is aimed "improving the general climate and achieving a higher level of mutual understanding," he added.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=7957




Russian missionary: Moldavian marginal Orthodox believers are part of Western project
Kishinev, November 25, Interfax - Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Protodeacon Andrey Kurayev believes the marginal Society of Blessed Matrona of Moscow led by Archpriest Anatoly Chibrik is backed by the Western political circles.

"The "society" headed by Anatoly Chibrik has no Moldavian focus. This is an instance of a large-scale project aimed at pursuing schism in the Orthodox Church. The project counts several dozen years. It is sponsored by a Western source," Father Andrey said in an interview published Thursday in the Moldavian issue of Argumenty i Facty weekly.

According to him, if the American intelligence is capable of fostering such anti-Western movement as the Taliban, "it is no wonder that such extreme schismatic groups in the Orthodox community may interest the same customers."

"To prevent the Orthodox Church from becoming an alternative to the American way of "globalization", it should look ridiculous, marginal and broken down. The American Pentecostals have spread the word about the "Number of the Beast" in bar-codes and the alleged reign of the beast," Father Andrey said.

In early October, Father Chibrik, who is currently tried by the Church court, started a fight at Fr. Andrey's lecture delivered in Kishinev. Several dozen aggressive followers of Fr. Chibrik rushed into the lecture hall with threats, beat down the faculty dean and smashed Fr. Andrey in the face.

Late last year, this group members held the anti-Semitic riot in the city center stating that they would not allow Moldavia to "governed by Jews" and tore down Jewish symbols, which were put up in the park two days before to celebrate Chanukah.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=7954




Moscow rejects U.S. allegations about religious inequality
Moscow, November 22, Interfax - Russia's Foreign Ministry rejected allegations by the U.S. State Department that there exists inequality between religious communities representing different faiths in Russia.

The State Department made its allegations in the 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom.

"The authors of the State Department report were unable to ignore positive trends in our country relating to religious freedoms," the ministry spokesman said in a statement.

However, "the American experts tried to dilute this impression by listing hackneyed complaints about the 'persecution' of totalitarian religious sects and the allegedly privileged status of the Russian Orthodox Church," he said.

If the Orthodox Church enjoys a privileged status in Russia, "one should speak about the same status of the Catholic Church in Italy or Poland, the Muslim [community] in Turkey or Jordan, or the Buddhist [community] in India or Japan," the spokesman said.

"The crux of the matter is apparently not privileges but social status. Such status above all depends on what proportion of the population wants to join a specific church. The Orthodox Church in Russia has traditionally commanded the largest flock, and the State Department report mentions it, by the way," he said.

"The Muslim denomination is second in our country in terms of the number of believers, etc.," the spokesman said.

"Consequently, different denominations and religions may have different representation in civil society institutions. But that is a human factor," he said.

"Legally, the various denominations are equal in status in our country. The growth of the number of registered religious communities, of which there already are 23,500 in Russia, is evidence of this," the spokesman said.

"Interdenominational peace and harmony is an invaluable asset of Russia, something that we treat very carefully, making all necessary efforts to preserve it," he said.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=dujour&div=33




Russian Church is ready to help USA compile more objective reports on international religious freedom


The USA Department of State has recently published its annual report on international religious freedom. Many Russian religious experts believe that its section on Russia lacks objectivity and analytical depth the same as in previous years.

Deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Hegumen Philipp (Ryabykh) tells Interfax-Religion correspondent Alexey Sosedov about strong and weak sides of the report and things that can be done to make it more objective in the future.

-Father Philipp, please share your impressions on the report
- Annual reports of the USA Department of State on religious freedom have long ago become an informational event for many experts and politicians in Russia. I think that such external view on religious freedom in Russia and other countries can be useful for international discussion over models of interaction between religion and society. Representatives of the Russian Church constantly participate in such discussion on the world arena and in certain countries, for example when registering our parishes and dioceses abroad or when discussing norms adopted by international organizations in this field.

Report 2010 has one essential advantage: it gives rather detailed and reliable description of legal norms, state and public measures taken to provide religious freedom and also some events in the country's religious life. The statistic data cited in the report mentions perish of Orthodox priests and damage inflicted to Orthodox churches.

However, an external view presented in the report has a significant defect that is difficult or perhaps even impossible to overcome. And we always have to consider this serious deviation when we read such reports and discuss them. I hardly believe that representatives of any country that openly declares its national interests will ever base their evaluations on real interests of the society whether it is the Russian society or society of any other country they try to analyze.

- With what particular things do you disagree in the analysis of the religious situation in Russia made by the USA authorities?
- First of all, the report absolutizes religious freedom and its provision at the expense of other important freedoms and values of public life the society can't do without. The report leaves an impression that democracy and prosperity in the country depend only on the society's ability to provide comfortable conditions for religious minorities or even micro groups of various kinds. Freedoms of other part of the society, security, preservation of original national, spiritual and cultural tradition fade at this background. The report considers it least of all that's why it criticizes a 15-year term for obtaining registration or the expert council at the Justice Ministry which was set up to find signs of extremism in religious literature.

The situation with religious education is covered absolutely tendentiously. It refers to lessons of Orthodoxy in schools, but keeps silence over the fact that in Islamic and Buddhist regions foundations of corresponding religious culture are taught. There are schools where Jewish tradition is in the curriculum. Results of the religious educational experiment held in the country's 19 regions sound strange. The report claims that majority of parents have choosen secular ethics for their children and at the same time it mentions that representatives of the Russian Church press on the parents to make them chose Orthodox culture. Is it logical? These conclusions don't match. If Russian church representatives pressed then, according to the report logics, rather significant percent of parents should have chosen foundations of Orthodoxy. Authors of this analysis ignore the fact that today some regional officials of low rank try to influence the parents and make them chose secular ethics. We know such cases and it's strange that reporters who claim to keep the dialogue with all religious organizations in the country do not know such examples or haven't reflected them in the report.

Besides, information that the Russian Church urged to stop Darwinism in schools is presented in a negative way. It's evident there was a US Democratic Party representative among the report authors as there is a wide discussion in America over covering various attitudes to world and human origin at school curriculum. It's worth mentioning that in the past the United States gave an opportunity to priests on Freedom Radio to expose scientific dogmas of the Soviet system and Darwinism in particular. And when the situation in Russian has changed and the country obtained an opportunity to give people religious education basing on their free choice, there appears such unexpected criticism in the field.

The report overemphasizes importance of some scientists and students' protests against presence of religion in Russian educational system. It points out to the student performance in St.Petersburg University in 2009 at a conference on religion and international relations, it says it was demonstration of public opinion. I participated in the conference and I can say that three-four students took part in the action and no one in the congress hall supported them and after the conference majority of students said they didn't accept such actions. It seems that the reporters don't want to see that the model when religion is present in educational system rules out pressure and secures the right of citizens to bring up their children in compliance with their world outlook.

- Major part of the report is dedicated to giving back the property...
- Unfortunately, actions of the government taken to overcome consequences of Soviet times and injustice to religious organizations, and support given to these actions by traditional religions are presented negatively. The report cites strange arguments similar to the report of the previous year that the Russian Church did not own churches and monasteries before 1917, but it doesn't mention that Orthodoxy was a state religion with all ensuing consequences. Current situation has dramatically changed, the state is secular. Thus even if before revolution religious property belonged to the state, the Church was then built in the state system, while today due to secular character of the state such objects should be transferred to religious organizations in ownership or use.

Surprising is an example of the Novodevichy Convent transferred to exclusive ownership of the Church. When examining various violations of religious rights the reporters cite international law, but when speaking about the convent they say nothing about important norms of international laws that regulate preservation of cultural objects enlisted as UNESCO world heritage when religious organizations own or use such objects. UNESCO in such cases stands up to protect rights of the believers and make religious organizations freely use such cultural sites.

At the backgrounds of critical attitude to the actions of the state taken to return expropriated property, the reporters selectively back up rights of the Russian Jewish community on returning Schneerson library and refer to international agreements. Support of some religious communities and creating negative image of other ones also arouse mistrust to the report.

There is one important remark as to the report methodology. It focuses on securing rights of religious minorities. The Russian Church believes that state and society should secure rights of all citizens and not only some of them. Minorities' rights shouldn't be secured at the expense of majority's rights. It often happens that minorities obtain permission for such activity that directly violates rights of the other part of the society.

For example, the report blames Orthodox public organizations for their criticism against actions of religious minorities. However, it doesn't mention that the latter sometimes have very critical or even aggressive position against the Russian Church, it's enough to analyze speeches of some religious leaders of the country. But such speeches are not mentioned in the report and it also makes us doubt fairness of the reporters' evaluations.

The report stresses that equality of religious organizations before the law is an important element. At the same time, it critically says that the Russian Church have more opportunities to reach the society and cooperates with the state. In this connection we should say that such situation in the country doesn't violate the principle of religious organizations equality before the law. Even the reporters say that about hundred million Russians call themselves Orthodox. Thus to secure rights of these citizens more work of the authorities is needed and the Russian Church needs to cooperate with the society to secure rights of these citizens. It is impossible to cooperate with religious minorities to the same degree as it will be out of proportions to their presence in the society and infringe rights of the citizens who adhere to the religion of majority.

The report expresses concerns over the growth of the Russian Church political influence and it is presented as violation of religious freedom. It points out to the cooperation with the United Russia party, other political parties and institutes of the country. But it makes me wonder why such interaction is evaluated negatively: in the United States political forces actively cooperate with religious organizations, politicians speak at religious meetings and it is a democratic process when the country's major political forces build a dialogue with religious organizations. According to the Constitution, Russia stands for pluralism of world outlooks and the duty of any political party is not to ignore the country's religious communities.

The Department of State believes that another example of religious freedom violation is the fact that Christmas is a state holiday and the new memorial date - Day of Russia's Baptism was introduced in the calendar and the Day of Slavic Scripture and Culture is widely celebrated. However, it only vaguely mentions that main Islamic feasts are officially celebrated in some Russian regions. Such information is not full as for example some Buddhist regions celebrate Buddhist feasts. The system adopted in Russia corresponds to democratic requirements as various groups of the society have an opportunity to celebrate main religious feasts.

Besides, such attitude to Christmas is absolutely unclear as this feast as well as some other Christian feasts is a state holiday in the States. Celebrations of such dates in Europe, America and Russia emphasize the importance given to the country's main religious tradition. At the same time, the state doesn't make people go to churches on these days, people spend their free time as they like.

-What would you wish to future State Department reports?
- I'd like to wish that in the future the report will have truly equal, friendly attitude to various religious organizations and will avoid selectiveness so that religious situation is reflected more fully and different points of view are presented - not only claims of religious minorities to the state or to the religious organizations of the majority, but the opinion of the Russian Church as well. We are ready for consultations, for the dialogue on a standing basis. Such a dialogue will help overcome all mentioned defects of the report.

- Have representatives of the USA external political department tried to set up dialogue with the Russian Church Department for External Church Relations, especially when preparing such reports?
- The USA Embassy turns to us when they want to clear out church position on some questions, but it usually happens once a year when the report is prepared and certainly it is impossible to touch upon all the problems during a one-hour talk. I think that representatives of the Department of State should hold consultations with various structures of the Russian Church depending on the questions they are interested in as well as with regional organizations of the Moscow Patriarchate. Sometimes there is an impression that such meetings are very formal, needed only for record and in fact position of the Orthodox Church is not examined and considered. Sometimes there is an impression that USA colleagues are not truly interested in our position and in reflecting it in the report.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=interview&div=89




People’s Assembly of Georgia expresses no confidence in Saakashvili

TBILISI, November 25 (Itar-Tass) -- The congress of the People’s Assembly of Georgia closed on Thursday by adopting a resolution of no confidence in the authorities. According to organizers, the congress, which took place in the square in front of the Parliament of Georgia and Rustaveli Avenue gathered about 15 thousand demonstrators. During the congress the avenue remained closed to traffic.

The congress’s resolution declares "lack of confidence in the president and the country's authorities."

"The nation-wide assembly is empowered to call upon the people to fight for a peaceful, legal replacement of the current authorities and spearhead the work for achieving this goal,” the document says. “In all regions and cities committees will be set up to prepare for a national civil disobedience campaign.

The congress voted for a "verdict of no confidence in President Saakashvili and the Georgian authorities", which states that "the president has lost the confidence of the people, carried out the monopolization of state power, established an authoritarian regime in the country and ignores the principles of law and justice."

"The people of Georgia expresses its readiness to conduct new fair elections in order to decide their political future," the document says.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15717326&PageNum=0




Putin regards Russian base in Tajikistan as factor of stability

DUSHANBE, November 25 (Itar-Tass) -- The Russian military base in Tajikistan is an important factor of stability in the region and proof of mutual confidence between the two countries, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared at Russo-Tajik talks on Thursday.

"Cooperation between the defence departments of the two countries and the presence of a full- format, fully-fledged Russian military base in Tajikistan on a long-term basis is a serious sign of mutual confidence between the two countries," Putin stressed. "This is an important factor of stability in this region, taking into account difficult processes continuing in Afghanistan," Putin said.

"All of us should do big work in Central Asia so that people could feel confident, be calm and reliably protected there," the Russian prime minister said.

Putin praised successful development of trade and economic contacts which were badly damaged as a result of the world economic and financial crisis, but which have been steadily revived in recent months. Putin also reminded of a number of joint projects Russia and Tajikistan had realized together or are implementing at present, including the construction of the Sangtuda-1 hydropower plant , which is the most important project underway at present.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15717085&PageNum=0




Putin calls to set partnership with Kyrgyzstan on business course

DUSHANBE, November 25 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia and Kyrgyzstan should bring their partnership to a normal, business course, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared at a meeting with Kyrgyz President of the transitional period Rosa Otunbayeva on Thursday. "We welcomed the Kyrgyz parliamentary election, and hope that the work on the formation of a new government will be completed soon," Putin said.

"In times of hardships in Kyrgyzstan Russia did everything possible to support Kyrgyzstan and its people. We rendered all the necessary, prompt assistance and gave humanitarian support to Kyrgyzstan," Putin said.

"Russia and Kyrgyzstan should bring their relations to a normal, business course and bring their day-to-day activities to a normal regime," Putin declared.

For her part Rosa Otunbayeva said that Kyrgyzstan appreciates Russia’ s assistance. "We heard Russia’s voice during those "hot" days and received Russia's support, which was vitally important," Otunbayeva said.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15717339&PageNum=0




Poland welcomes Russia’s Duma Katyn statement

Polish politicians have welcomed a draft statement on the Katyn massacre being discussed by Russia’s State Duma.

Polish sejm speaker Grzegorz Schetyna believes this to be an important step towards strengthening bilateral relations.

A deputy from the Polish Peasant Party thinks that the bill should be highly assessed by Poland as a gesture of rapprochement.

Russia’s State Duma has proposed to recognize the Katyn massacre as a Stalin regime crime.

In 1940, thousands of Polish officers were executed in the Katyn forest near the city of Smolensk.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/11/26/35708199.html




Medvedev hands over Poland Katyn massacre documents

Prior to the WWII celebrations, Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev has handed over official papers from the investigation into the Katyn massacre to the acting President of Poland, Bronislaw Komorowski.

The acting Polish president, in turn, expressed his gratitude to the Russian government for the move, which is widely viewed as a step towards improving the countries’ relation.

"We thank you for what you have said and done. We consider it to be the beginning of further work to untie this Katyn knot," Komorowski said.

"The truth about Katyn is a common test that both the Polish and Russian people have endured. This truth could be a good basis for the development of relations between the two countries," he added.

Bronislaw Komorowski has come to Moscow to take part in the Victory Day celebrations this weekend. Dmitry Medvedev thanked the acting president for his willingness to attend the festive events.

The documents, which have also been published online, show that the killing of over twenty thousand Polish officers and prisoners of war in Katyn in 1940 was approved by Soviet leaders led by Stalin.

First acknowledged by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the massacre has become a major strain in Russian-Polish relations in recent years.

http://english.ruvr.ru/rtvideo/2010/05/09/video_7535387.html




Romanovs' correspondence archives to be auctioned in Geneva

Correspondence archives of the last Russian imperial family will be put up for sale in Geneva on December 6.

More than 2,000 letters, drawings, photographs, cable messages and postcards from Grand Dukes George and Mikhail and Grand Duchesses Xenia and Olga to their Swiss tutor Ferdinand Thormeyer will be auctioned along with a silver cigarette-case and a sapphire – a gift to Thormeyer from Crown Prince Nicholas and Grand Duke George.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/11/25/35591835.html

"Церковь должна выразить сожаление за гонения на ревнителей древнего благочестия"

Игумен Кирилл (Сахаров) прокомментировал визит митрополита Илариона в Духовный центр старообрядчества

+

"Этот визит я оцениваю как положительное явление. Контакты должны быть и желательно на регулярной основе. Приходилось слышать, что время для встречи было не совсем подходящим - только что митрополит Корнилий отказался от поездки в Румынию на Собор тамошних старообрядцев, а вот с иерархами РПЦ встречается. Но, во-первых, действительно, владыке Корнилию было нереально чисто технически выехать на Собор в Браилу (резиденция Белокриницкого митрополита Леонтия). А во-вторых форма приглашения, благословение главе самостоятельной Московской митрополии прибыть и то, что целью приглашения было, похоже, разбирательство личного дела владыки Корнилия. Все это, очевидно, тормозило положительный отклик со стороны Москвы. А тут заранее запланированный ответный визит председателя ОВЦС. Не так просто его перенести, учитывая плотный график занятости таких церковных деятелей как владыка Иларион", - заявил в интервью "Русской народной линии" настоятель храма Святителя Николы на Берсеневке г. Москвы, игумен Кирилл (Сахаров), комментируя визит председателя ОВЦС митрополита Волоколамского Илариона в резиденцию старообрядческого митрополита Корнилия, расположенную в Рогожском поселке.

Как сообщает сайт ОВЦС МП, 19 ноября председатель Отдела внешних церковных связей Московского Патриархата митрополит Волоколамский Иларион по приглашению старообрядческого митрополита Московского и всея Руси Корнилия посетил старообрядческую митрополию, расположенную в Рогожском поселке. Старообрядческий митрополит посетил Отдел внешних церковных связей 1 октября прошлого года.

Участники встречи с удовлетворением отметили, что во многих сферах церковно-общественной жизни развивается сотрудничество старообрядческой митрополии с Русской Православной Церковью. В частности, обсуждался вопрос о преподавании в общеобразовательных школах предмета "Основы православной культуры". В разработке учебного пособия по этой дисциплине принял участие представитель старообрядческой стороны. Было отмечено, что учебник протодиакона Андрея Кураева не затрагивает спорных вопросов и освещает темы, важные как для чад Русской Православной Церкви, так и для старообрядцев. В духе взаимопонимания были также обсуждены вопросы, связанные с ожидаемым принятием закона "О передаче религиозным организациям имущества религиозного назначения, находящегося в государственной или муниципальной собственности".

Со стороны Русской Православной Церкви во встрече принимали участие заместитель председателя ОВЦС МП протоиерей Николай Балашов, секретарь Комиссии по делам старообрядных приходов и по взаимодействию со старообрядчеством иерей Иоанн Миролюбов и сотрудник ОВЦС МП Д.И.Петровский. Со старообрядческой стороны во встрече участвовали благочинный старообрядческой Московской епархии протоиерей Леонтий Пименов, настоятель Никольского храма г. Москвы иерей Алексий Лопатин и секретарь митрополита протодиакон Виктор Савельев. На встрече присутствовал также соучредитель Благотворительного фонда во имя святителя Григория Богослова В.С.Якунин.

В завершении встречи митрополит Иларион передал в дар предстоятелю Русской православной старообрядческой церкви факсимильное издание "Лицевого летописного свода" - многотомного свода событий мировой и особенно русской истории, созданного в 40-60-х годах XVI века специально для царской библиотеки в единственном экземпляре. Факсимильное издание осуществляется по инициативе В.С.Якунина при поддержке Благотворительного фонда св. Григория Богослова.

По словам игумена Кирилла (Сахарова), он давно знаком с митрополитом Иларионом. "Познакомились мы в середине 80-х будучи иеродиаконами - я Данилова монастыря, а он Свято-Духова в Вильнюсе. Талантливый человек. Особенно импонируют его статьи на тему древнего церковного пения. Хорошо поставленная речь, за такого иерарха не стыдно перед иностранцами", - считает отец Кирилл.

Говоря о фактуре встречи митрополита Илариона со старообрядческим митрополитом Корнилием, отец Кирилл сказал, что "не был ее участником, трудно судить о ней по лаконичному официальному сообщению". "А вот выступление митрополита Илариона в тот же день на заседании комиссии РПЦ по делам старообрядных приходов и по взаимодействию со старообрядчеством, - продолжил он, - примечательно. Он назвал старый обряд "эталоном для церковной жизни", он сказал, что "когда мы участвуем в богослужении совершаемом по старому обряду, мы не только узнаем как молились наши предки, мы учимся у них правилу молитвы". Отлично. Мы вот этим уже почти 20 лет занимаемся у себя на Берсеневке. Нам бы хотелось больше понимания и поддержки и меньше бы волноваться об угрозах потери этого уникального комплекса, на который вожделенно поглядывают некоторые наши миссионеры. Владыка Иларион напомнил оценку Патриархом Кириллом трагических событий середины XVII века, когда была "предпринята попытка изменить цивилизационный код наших предков, привить им иную культуру и иные ценности". Прекрасно! Лучше не скажешь. "Совершать богослужение по старому обряду - это не только своевременно, но и современно". "Русская церковная старина сегодня не только востребована, но и нуждается в реабилитации". Ну просто перлы, самое значимое, что сказано на эту тему в последние годы. Напоминает стиль протоиерея Георгия Флоровского (см. его книгу "Пути русского богословия")".

Отвечая на вопрос корреспондента, что ему еще известно об этой встрече, священник сказал: "Мне часто бывает известно несколько больше того о чем сообщают официальные бюллетени. Например то, что возможны лекции представителей старообрядчества в наших духовных школах. Хорошо бы. Известно также, что мое имя неоднократно упоминалось в процессе встречи. Для меня положительное упоминание не роскошь и не повод для подпитки амбиций, а насущная потребность для выживания на приходе в центре Москвы".

Игумен Кирилл рассказал о тех шагах, которые, по его мнению, стоит предпринять для уврачевания раскола. "Я уже много говорил на эту тему, прежде всего, о необходимости выразить сожаление за кровавые гонения на ревнителей древнего благочестия и т.д. Из новенького, свеженького хотел бы "выдать на-гора" следующее: хорошо было бы Предстоятелю нашей Церкви, осуществляя визиты в разные епархии, предусмотреть в программе совершение крещений через полное погружение. Представьте себе кафедральный собор города N. Все духовенство епархии во главе с правящим архиереем в полном сборе. Пяток молодых ребят в длинных белых рубашках у пяти изящных купелей. Кандидаты прошли добротную катехизацию, их крестить помогают 5 или 10 священников, а главное, что всех погружает Патриарх. Мощное оповещение в СМИ. И после этого - делать только так и не иначе. Думаю, что это было бы не менее важно, чем посещение какого-либо учреждения, воинского коллектива и т.д. Скажу в заключение еще об одной идее. Для того, чтобы успешно продвигаться вперед не обойтись без покаяния и не только за гонения. Я был бы счастлив, если бы на самом высоком уровне прозвучали бы покаянные слова от имени Церкви за все аномалии церковной жизни за многие десятилетия и даже за последние столетия. Раскаяние за допущение нарушений при совершении величайшего Таинства - Таинства Крещения, через которое мы входим в спасительную ограду Церкви, поставил бы на первом месте", - заключил игумен Кирилл (Сахаров).

"РУССКАЯ НАРОДНАЯ ЛИНИЯ", 23 ноября 2010 г.

http://portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=81060

Land of the kuban Cossacks.

Again Agathangelite Confusion

Happy Thanksgiving to all in the USA and in American houses, embassies, bases and possessions throughout the world!

+

I feel very uncomfortable with the various Russian dissident groups. Many times, the impression they leave is of people who intentionally wish to shock and disparage simply to get attention and cause dissensions/schisms. Other times, they latch on to a ROCOR mythology of the "past" and preach a "continuing ROCOR" russophobia for today. Having been a Tikhonite almost all of my adult existence and a one time advocate of ROCOR "dissidency," I have to admit that I do have a fundamental "former" experience both with the "old ROCOR" and with the "Filaretovtsy," along with those who have aligned themselves with a "Cyprianite" or "classical Florinite" orientation today.

Truth be told, for a short time, I even had a modified "Vitalyite" orientation and a more rigourist view of ecclesiology. I can recall the paroxysms of disdain which welled up inside me every time a "sergianist hierarch" was mentioned (or-God forbid-commemorated!). I was uncomfortable with MP institutions and even their appreciation by people as a "ruse used by the godless" to "deceive," the MP being a body whose authenticity was "dubious at best."

Then I witnessed and experienced +Vitaly's blessings of ROCOR monks to join EP monasteries, his quiet "cooperation" with EP "people" and their agenda, his advocacy for commemoration of the EP to the Brotherhood of St. Elias Skete, then his not so tempered blame game of them for their "intransigence." (Don't get me wrong--when one learns the "other side," things like this or personages like Brother Jose become complicated considerations). I saw that +Vitaly very much enjoyed even the most liberal of Greek New Calendarist clergy or the most ecumenistic of Serbian churchman. So the hypocrisy and "politikanstvo" of Vitalyism grew cold; while the excesses of his "assistant" at Synod with her Tuchkov-esque "influence" nailed that coffin shut.

Then I asked myself a fundamental question: Could +Vitaly, who walked in the shadows of the Grabbes and shared their inconsistent "zealotries" (and their penchants and corruptions) only eventually to "retire" them to "remove rivals," be really ignored for recognizing the offices of Greek New Calendarists, very ecumenist Serbs, and others, all the while declaring that he was not in Communion with them, that the charisma of their local churches was in doubt?! Could his hatred of "Party members in cassocks" in the "Stalinist organism" be taken seriously when he openly worked with freemasons in cassocks and freemasonic governments (when they took him seriously) to advance his political agenda and their open hatred of ALL things Russian (including and especially OLD IMPERIAL RUSSIA)?

What cemented my reorientation away from this type of thinking were other people he surrounded himself with. One of those fellows (whose divorce and later "episcopacy" he advocated) was known to savour memories of his service in the US Army in West Berlin during the Cold War, where night time rifle shots would be taken to "murder the Reds," how he celebrated one evening where as a sentry, he tossed a grenade over the fence and had it fall at the feet of his Soviet counterpart, where that "Bolshevik sonofabitch was ripped apart when it detonated" and how he enjoyed "sending Communist scum like him to hell." To this day, when he gets drunk, he reminisces, savoring his act of "White justice."

The only way a Red Army soldier of that period differed from me and members of my family was that his family was in the Soviet Union while mine had escaped. Otherwise in culture, language, temperament and, YES, religion he was the SAME PERSON AS I (or any son or daughter of an immigrant) is. He had the SAME TYPE OF RUSSIAN MOTHER AND FATHER, who wept bitter tears that their son had been murdered for simply serving his country to keep them safe. I would wager that this Vitalyite murdered an Orthodox Christian who could have even been related to him.

That is not for me. That path and attitude IS NOT OF CHRIST. It is not a Russian mentalite and is really an enemy of every local Orthodoxy.

This is the attitude especially of the Agathangelites and increasingly even of people who should KNOW BETTER like certain Bishops of the SiR. This celebrated and unapologetic russophobia is why no sane Russian Orthodox Christian should take them seriously. They are advocates not only of hating Russia but openly stand for destroying the Russian church and coordinate their efforts in doing so with not only "other ROCOR fragments," but with "Ukrainian" autocephalists and Renovationist heretics like the DEPOSED M. A. Denisenko. They relish Uniate takeovers by coercion of and violence in churches in Galicia (Red Russia), Carpatho Russia, and Volhynia (Black Russia), all over and everywhere. They support freemasonic Orange governments nationalizing and attempting to take over Russian holy places like the Kiev Caves and Pochaev Lavras. They celebrate the creation of new Uniate dioceses in Little Russia in places where they HAVE BEEN FORBIDDEN SINCE HETMAN KHMELNITSKY reunited Little Russia with Rus', since Hetman Vygovsky signed the Treaty of Hadiach, ABOLISHING THE BREST UNION AND ORDERING ALL UNIATES OFF LITTLE RUSSIAN AND RUSIN TERRITORIES. No, the Agathangelites celebrate the return of the heirs of Josaphat Kuntsevich and Vasili Lipkovsky, savouring a demoniac satisfaction that Russian Orthodox monuments like the Cossack Graves are "no longer in Moscow's Bolshevik hands."

This might be at times politically advantageous to them, but it is by no means faithful to the historical Russian church and in no wise Orthodox. It is a patent renunciation of Russian Orthodoxy OF ANY VARIETY. Their sites celebrate such vile blogs as "La Russophobe" and in the same breath try to drape themselves in the legacies of people like Metropolitan Philaret, St. John of San Francisco, Fr. Rostislav Gan or Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) of Platina.

Would any such people EVER be associated with a blog devoted to open RUSSOPHOBIA AND HATRED OF RUSSIA, HER HISTORY, PEOPLE, THEIR CULTURE, AND RELIGION?!

But people like Fr. Nikita GrigorieV and the former Father Igor Hrebinka encourage this revisionism of hate. There is no Russian Orthodoxy they accept, save one where they assume control of Russia's Orthodox cathedras in their spiritually pornographic fantasies and destroy Russia's Orthodox dioceses and open the floodgates to their allies like Mr. Denisenko's or Cardinal Hussar's RENOVATIONIST AND HERETICAL UKRAINIAN NEO NAZIs and RESURGENT UNIATES. They gladly serve to destroy Russia and her church, to cut Holy Rus' into pieces, celebrating every setback and advocating the cause of every sectarian to undermine the Church of Rus' planted on her holy soil by SS Vladimir and Olga.

The sad fact of the matter is that the PSCA group has very little actual Russian people in it (very little people) at all, being comprised of a SMALL NUMBER of Orange agents in Cassocks in Odessa styling themselves as "Ukrainian Aryans (Russophobic Russians)," Latin American third and fourth generation assimilates, and a handful of VERY unstable North American converts who HATE ALL THINGS RUSSIAN. (Visit Tennessee and simply listen for twenty minutes.) That's it. These people deride canons, reject any conciliar authority in resolution of controversies, and refuse to accept that the Synods which consecrated their Bishops not only CAN, BUT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, ADJUDICATING THEIR STATUSES and suspending and even DEPOSING THEM when they rebel, become vagantes and advance schism. A Father and Canon Lawyer like St. Basil the Great would expect no less of Orthodox synods.

When Greek aligned groups STUPIDLY join this fray and have their hierarchs make similarly stupid and schismatic statements and engage in acts which canonically will lead to the condemnation of these "True Orthodox resisters" when conciliar resolution does happen, one is left with no choice but to reevaluate the hubris which denatures the spiritual peace of these Greeks. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna HAS NO BUSINESS ENGAGING IN RUSSIAN POLITICS TO ADVANCE SCHISM IN THE RUSSIAN CHURCH AND RECOGNIZING, CONCELEBRATING WITH, DEPOSED CLERICS. For one, such acts are CONDEMNED BY THE HOLY CANONS WHILE THEY ARE MUCH THE MORE AT ODDS WITH THE ECCLESIOLOY HIS SYNOD STANDS FOR.

My answer to this vile hatred of my people, Faith, culture and history, my identity is quite simply this: for me, it is a matter of fidelity to the legacy of St. Tikhon, the Holy New Martyrs and what Blessed Philaret represented to be faithful to the "stalinist organism" AKA MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE OF ALL THE RUSSIAS and to eschew schism. One cannot be truly Russian Orthodox and faithful to the Russian church and in the same breath hate the symbol of Russian Orthodox preeminence and fidelity to Orthodoxy, which has historically defined itself by rejection of Byzantine Uniatism and corruption of Orthodox Faith and discipline by politics. St. Tikhon didn't seek to have a patriarchate for "Whites only" but actually sought a patriarchate which NOT ONLY RECOGNIZED but served the religious needs of a Russian people who had politically chosen Soviet government (in rejection of WHITE freemasonic British pleibescites and Prussian partitions).

People often mention this or that historical fact or talk about the "good ole days" with me and end up remarking how "I am so very much a voice of old ROCOR." Liberal neo Uniates like a Metropolitan Jonah have even leveled accusations and play games of guilt by association behind my back: I have to be the ROCOR strawman for them! I tell them that I am not at all, that I have generally rejected a ROCOR mythology and am RUSSIAN ORTHODOX, loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate, rejecting equally the scandal of a Grabbe or LebedeV controlled Synod, especially one in BED WITH THE FREEMASONs, along with schisms like the PSCA or the ecumenist failures which have destroyed--and who now rule--the OCA. I would not welcome such people as +Hilarion of New York with any tolerance and would enjoy very much exchanges with unread and very ignorant Judases like Fr. Seraphim Gan or Fr. Lebedev, but in the same breath, I must emphasize that I would not hesitate to address a Pashkovsky of Odessa likewise (perhaps more directly) or even a puffed up Fr. Nikita Grigoriev. God blessed me with a sufficiently Orthodox "Traditionalist" formation and a mind adequate enough to address topics with them, even though I am by no means anything more than sinful filth. God has been merciful to me in my life and I am thankful for all things.

Then again, when stupidities like "KGB agent" innuendos and other contrived inanities shower me from the Aganthelites, they not knowing that I personally have issues with HERETICS like Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeev and the current NIKODIMITE Patriarch, I simply begin to not only doubt the sanity of these people, but even of their fundamental capabilities to reason. If they only knew that I disagreed with Fr. Shevkunov's take on the Vlasovite movement or that I reject Dugin as an agent of ISLAMIST Secretism, not any kind of acceptible Eurasianism, that I feel Putin is increasingly becoming inadequate and the "oprichnina" inaugurated with a clearly LIBERAL Medvedev is tiresome and only destroying Russian culture and 21st century Russian identity.

But, honestly, when someone, who celebrates being a RUSSOPHOBE, openly working to undermine Russian Orthodoxy, draped in a tacky, undisguised disgust of all things Russian, spews bile at me because of my Russian forebearers and my fidelity to Orthodoxy, they reveal themselves as enemies to every ideal I stand for. And when they are not Russian and shower you with John Birch stupidities, it is hyperbolic insensitivity to take such asinine assaults against Russian Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodox people and countries seriously. These are disturbed and openly ignorant people who celebrate their hate. They wallow in it like swine in their own filth. They are not only bomb throwers but stupid ones, who should be pitied for representing the "moron caste" which so defines "resisters" ("Matthewite," "Florinite," "Catacomb," etc.). When I think of ALL these unfortunate groups, I remember Lyovushka joking with people in Jordanvile and telling them, "By the way--You should know--I'm a secret /or Catacomb/ Protopresbyter." They are clearly mentally deranged, constituting nothing more than uanabashed, insipid voices of schism and estrangement from Christ, from HIS ONE TRUE CHURCH. What more needs be said?!

They presume that since they are the products of a Pashkovskyite CIA orchestrated Jonestown cult, that everyone else follows their lead and interpretation of "Orthodox fidelity" and "Russian identity" dictated by Blue and Yellow neo-Banderites. Not quite.

I recall when this PSCA schism was forming, I seriously wanted to know what they stood for and where they were going, what their vision was. I secretly tried to envision an Old Platina/Old Jordanville orientation. What became clear to me is that not only were their people NOT associated with these institutions, THEY WERE NOT FORMED IN THEM, but openly only used a system of "propaganda by association" to sell themselves. This counterfeit quickly became tiresome and distasteful when it became clear that they were not comfortable with ANY concept of Russian Orthodoxy. Which is fine. One need not be Russian to be Orthodox. Just be clear in saying you aren't. Then I asked a few of their clergy and monastics why it was important for them to insist on any type of Russian Orthodox identity, ROCOR or not. I asked since they were virtually ALL converts or non Russians or assimilates, wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on their missions in diaspora, forming a local Orthodoxy concentrated in a Pan Orthodox approach, spirituality, ritual, and culminating in a local church to which they can and will be FAITHFUL as converts and assimilates. Yes, people, openly russophobes, could and should be Orthodox and have a place to worship. But reason dictates it shouldn't be Russian, neither for them, nor for the Russian church. Right?! They were offended by my question and began hating me for the implications I inserted into their approaches and orientations.

But, honestly, that is what they should have done. They should have done it with ETNA to avoid this nasty downward spiral of vanganteeism, schism and CIA-freemasonic directed NEO SERGIANISM. They didn't need a new jurisdiction. They simply needed to advance unity by UNITING WITH ETNA and formulating missions more Russian in ritual and spirituality than Greek in an OCA post Russian type way. So when they squawk about "splinters" and a "lack of unity," they exist as advocates of this great sin and the personifications of it. Nothing more.

I must say that the more I take the time to consider these people and their statements, the more I become uncomfortable not only with them, but especially the modern deformation of the old ROCOR mythology. I seriously want no part of that, even though it is a major part of my formation. I would advise everyone to just take a moment and consider these thoughts I am sharing and formulate their own opinions on these Pashkovskyite VAGANTE, SCHISMATICS. Their path will lead you out of the Church and endanger your immortal soul. Since it is directed by neo-Sergianist freemasonic agents, what else could it accomplish?!


Truth be told, when I think of Russian Orthodox dissidency today, who to me is most attractive, I find myself wishing that a Metropolitan Kornily of Moscow or the Belo Krinitsa Synod would adopt a more inclusive ecclesiology and appreciation for ALL Orthodox Traditionalism (of whatever rite), for if Unia were to result from Alfeev's or Lebedev's EVIL betrayals of Orthodoxy, that would be the first place I would like to visit, hoping that they could not only act to unite Priested Old Ritualists, but also faithfully Orthodox "Nikonians." I am a Nikonian who respects authentic Russian Orthodoxy in all guises.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on us, sinners!

-Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky