Gathering Dark Clouds

When the tempest arose and Christ and His disciples were at sea, He slept. The boat began to take on water. St. Peter awoke the Master, pleading with Him. He rebuked the storm, and all was well. His words then spoken were a quiet and loving "Oh, ye of little faith..."

So we must greet the storms rocking the Church Militant today. They are many, manifold. But simply have faith. Christ will rebuke the storm and we will be saved. Fair weather and safe harbours are a matter of our redoubling prayer and bulwarking our lives on the bedrock of a granite faith.

So when we consider the utterly disheartening situation in the OCA with its Metropolitan awakened to the reality of impending extinction of the Russian American mission, we must pray and have Faith. No, a reduction in membership from 1,000,000 in 1976 to 85,000 today, just 35 years later, is not the end. Millions in debt and obligations which lack any and all possible means of solvency are not the issue. God will provide. But in this dark night, grace has not abandoned the OCA, no it has simply receded, watching, waiting for the OCA to repent of the errors of the Theodosian era and begin rebuilding and renewing in the Holy Spirit and in the Tradition of the Church, to begin forming an actual American local tradition, and not one of Russian assimilates who prefer to dishonour their mothers and fathers, grandparents, their forefathers and their millenial Russian Orthodox piety. The Holy Spirit awaits the return of the Prodigal Son and He will prepare a rich banquet for him, that we all may feast, for our brother was dead but will be alive again. Grace upon grace waits to abound and bless Orthodox America. Let us pray.

Metropolitan Jonah approached the OCA Holy Synod with the prospect of self-annulment of the "autocephaly" as the OCA cannot continue on as it has existed with its FAILED "Americanizations" and RENOVATIONIST follies. He felt it more desirous to be succoured by the Mother Church, Moscow, than to eventually be absorbed by Constantinople and then have the OCA's holdings sold to pay whatever debts the Greeks (or Antiochians) can. His proposal is the best way. The old guard, of course, was furious. His resignation was demanded. It was quickly received. But fear of exposure of their failure cooled their tempers and they suspended their own Metropolitan "to think it over." To think, Metropolitan Jonah was once known to scoff at denunciations of "schmemannism," but it seems, he is now the victim of its polity.

They have to go and this event crystalizes that realization, EVEN FOR HIM.

No, Metropolitan Jonah is hardly a confessor of Orthodoxy, his is the type of "social activism" of a Frank Schaeffer who shouts at the rooftops of the failure of the Religious Right and laments abortion is still legal, prayer in schools is nigh now impossible and the gay agenda is victorious BUT then goes on to be a vehement Barack Obama partizan. This innate inconsistency of a certain generational archetype gives one little hope that Metropolitan Jonah will do little but eventually cave, and, thus, the old Russian temples of the OCA will either eventually be demolished or sold on the auction block to meet its debt burdens once Constantinople assumes full control of the North American Episcopal Assembly. The future is ominous but can be avoided. Sadly, Metropolitan Jonah can not be a constructive figure in that future. He is far too inconsistent and lacks a proper Orthodox formation to be part of the accomplishment.

In the final analysis, be it return to Moscow and a chance at resuscitation or absorption by the EP and a firesale, in all prospects, the OCA "autocephaly," even in theory, is a dead letter (and was from the very start).

In ROCOR, still nothing has been done to investigate the masonic influences in Synod and an insidious wave of unannounced modernizations has begun to creep in where a "neo schmemannism" and "quiet ecumenism" and blind eye to Renovationism have begun to reign. This is what happens when you have chancellors with no more than a high school education and "essential" churchmen of Los Angeles who gained their appreciation of their Russian Orthodox heritage by reading about it in an Ivy League university library.

While in the Mother Church, the fires of ecumenism yet rage with a quiet agenda which has not been seen since the schemers and deceivers of the Brest Unia. No, our crypto Uniate RENOVATIONIST Nikodimite hierarchs rage in all fury fastidiously seeking to recognize the Unia! They wish a modus vivendi with the UGCC! They are prepared to not only betray Orthodoxy but even the very ethnic heritage of the Little Russian and Rusin peoples whose history and character have been shaped by oppression, forced uniatization and armed struggle with and valorous victory over in abolition of Unia as THEIR HISTORICAL INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN IDENTITY. No, the Nikodimites would condemn Gonta anew to the Polish-papal gallows. I believe that if this NIKODIMITE HERETIC DARES TO RECOGNIZE THE UGCC in the name of Medvedev, Putin or whomever, that it is time for AUTOCEPHALY FOR THE SEE OF KIEV in much the same fashion it was declared when Isidore brought the Byzantine Unia of Florence to Moscow. That is the answer this heretic should receive. It is high time, the Nikodimite party either begin TRADITIONALLY missionizing the post Soviet masses in the "Russky mir" or simply admit that it can't and step aside and let others act, locally, if necessary.

Saving souls, ending abortion and reaching the youth and secularized, not reeping profits from cigarette sales, is the concern of the Russian church. It is high time the patriarchate BEGIN honouring its vocation and STOP seeking Rome's help to address these issues. It itself MUST DO THE WORK.

At the Treaty of Hadiach, the "Ukrainian" Getman Vygovsky (who called himself a RUSSIAN) had the BREST UNIA ABOLISHED AND DRIVEN OFF ALL RUSIN AND LITTLE RUSSIAN TERRITORIES UNDER HIS CONTROL. This was a treaty recognized by recz pospolita. It is HIGH TIME IT BE ENFORCED! Renovationism was anathemized by St. Tikhon and HNM Benjamin of Petrograd among many other Confessors of Orthodoxy and it is time it be DRIVEN FROM OUR CHURCH, wherever it rears its ugly head and the anathemas of the Seventh Ecumenical Council regarding those "who innovate and become iconoclasts of the Holy Tradition ARE ANATHEMA!" be read aloud and obeyed.

Thus, I would suggest for the "Ukrainian" UGCC even a status of PATRIARCHATE, provided that they RENOUNCE UNIA AND BECOME FULL FLEDGED LATIN RITE PAPAL CHRISTIANS. The Unia must be abolished and it has no place on ANY EASTERN EUROPEAN OR HISTORICALLY ORTHODOX SOIL. Let Rome sway its followers with ITS OWN RITE! No, let them TOTALLY RENOUNCE ANY AND ALL KINSHIP TO HOLY RUS' AND HAVE ONLY A CONTRIVED AND FOREIGN CONCOCTED "UKRAINIAN" IDENTITY! LET THERE BE NO RUSSIAN PAPAL HERETICS! This is not something Rome wants to entertain as an option BUT IT WILL IF THE ISSUE IS EMPHASIZED AS A NECESSARY STEP FOR FRUITFUL DIALOGUE. While the "UGCC" is prepared to "enter schism" if Rome should take that step. Thus, Rome should consider how loyally papal these neo Nazis really are. So is Rome interested in rapproachment with Russian Orthodoxy at least so that constructive dialogue can occur or does it only want a Nikodimite quiet unia?! These are considerations it must finally consider in honesty and treat with good faith. The East is not stupid and IS NOT going to be deceived into Unia. Papal primacy isn't even an issue to discuss when THERE ISN'T AN ORTHODOX PAPACY. Rome, REPENT, RETURN TO ORTHODOXY AND BRING THE CHURCHES IN COMMUNION WITH YOU. Rome needs to engage this conversation honestly in paradigms of resolution so that dialogue may have an Orthodox and Catholic successful outcome.


Patriarch Kirill, Metropolitan AND HERESIARCH Hilarion Alfeev, Orthodox Russia tells you one thing in a loud voice, WE WILL NEVER ACCEPT UNIA AND WILL ONLY EVER RECOGNIZE ROME WHEN ROME IS ORTHODOX AGAIN! WE DO NOT AFFIRM MSGNR NIKODIM ROTOV's DECEPTIONS AND WILL NOT HAVE THEM! NEVER TO UNIA! NO PAPAL PRIMACY! THE "SACRAMENTS" OF HERETICS ARE GRACELESS! RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM CALLED ECUMENISM OR UNIA IS APOSTASY AND ECCLESIOLOGICAL HERESY! Yes, Metropolitan Alfeev, EVEN "unleavened wafers" are blasphemous, for they deny the New Covenant and the REALITY THAT THE CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE THE BREAD OF HASTE BUT WE THE CHURCH HAVE THE BREAD OF LIFE LEAVENED BY CHRIST JESUS RISEN FROM THE DEAD TRAMPLING DOWN DEATH BY DEATH! That's why the Orthodox Eucharist is leavened (and why it was leavened in the Western churches prior to the schism). Don't even DARE to offend the Russian Orthodox faithful with common prayer with these HERETICS UNTIL THEY ARE ONE IN FAITH or mention a papal visit to Russia UNTIL THEY AT VERY LEAST REMOVE THE FILIOQUE FROM THE NICENE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED THROUGHOUT THE PAPAL COMMUNION AND END THE UNIA!

WE WILL NEVER RECOGNIZE NOR ACCEPT UNIA ON RUSSIAN SOIL AND ANY PERSON WHO IS A LATIN HERETIC OF WHATEVER RITE ON RUSSIAN SOIL IS AN ACCURSED TRAITOR TO HOLY RUS'!

Let that be clear, Heresiarch Alfeev.

Aside from the Nikodimite minority, the most distasteful survivals of the Renovationist heretics on the soil of Holy Rus' are the UAOC and the "KP." They must either be legally reincorporated in the successor states as "Protestant churches" or disbanded and deprived of all legal protections as parasitic organisms seeking to uproot the historical Church of St. Vladimir engaging in a religious counterfeit, ie disbanded on the basis of their committing conspiracy, fraud and an organized criminal enterprise.

Finally, with the GOCs and "Katakombniki"... It would be good for the Milan Synod to achieve a ROCOR-like status with the Mother Church, the MP, but its diasporan Metropolia with its heretical Matthewite ecclesiological stupidities needs to be brought under control and also into Communion, perhaps with the OCA. It would be good for Fili and her Bulgarian and Romanian confederates to finally begin to regularize their status with their mother churches with the patronage of the MP, but they must stop concelebrating with deposed hierarchs who commemorate deposed Patriarchs of Jerusalem. Enough is enough. Yes, it is encouraging to see HOCNA moderate its ecclesiology but would be most beneficial if it finally resolved certain moral issues.

This storm is but a ripple in the ocean of the Church Militant's pilgrim sojourn on earth. Christ will calm this storm. The end is not near. Have faith. Keep the Faith. Be strong. Despair not! Christ is Risen!

R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

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

SiR Archbishop Chysostomos Responds to EP Episcopal Assembly

To: Exarchate, Clergy, and Faithful
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos

Re: First Episcopal Assembly of Canonical Orthodox
Hierarchs in North and Central America

Evlogia Kyriou. Gospod' blagoslovit. May God bless you.

Many of you know that there was a convocation of Orthodox Bishops at the Helmsley Park Lane Hotel in New York City last week, described, in a somewhat addled way, as the "First Episcopal Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs in North and Central America." Some of you have inquired of me about it.

This meeting (see the attached photograph) was convened by Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Needless to say, no Old Calendarist resisters, including the Hierarchs of our Synod in Resistance and its Sister Churches, were invited attend, whether as participants or observers.

The question, below, which gives me a platform from which to address the inquiries that I have received, was sent to me by a well-placed individual who teaches in an Orthodox seminary and who discussed the meeting with two Bishops of his acquaintance, both of whom were in attendance.

Most of the questioner's letter, containing unedifying material of no interest to anyone (gossip euphemistically passed on by those who discussed it as "information"), I have erased. (He repeated this gossip, incidentally, not in an insulting or accusatory way, but in order to express his own dismay at the abject level of discourse between the discussants in question.)

I have copied the questioner's more general reference to that material and his inquiry about my reaction to the assembly, as I said above, to provide me with an opportunity to comment on the assembly for those who have inquired about it and in an attempt to set it in the wider context of American Orthodoxy.



QUESTION:


...It was XXX and XXX who discussed you and your bishops personally with XXX, who said that your synod is made up of schismatics and is outside the church, along with the bishops of Metropolitan Agafangel. ...I was disgusted at the scuttlebutt about you and Metropolitan Kyprianos and your supposed religious vagaries before monasticism. ...This all showed a lot animosity and a desire to discredit you and Metropolitan Kyprianos. For example [examples deleted].... I'd be glad to set the record straight on a number of the these rumors if you want. They both know that I know the real facts. ...[Getting on], did you read Archbishop Demetrios's presentation to the gathering? What do you think of it?


ANSWER:


I do not address, beyond what I have said in the past, my private life before I became a monk or misrepresentations of, and fantasies about, it. All of this is irrelevant, and I let my Orthodox confession, the truth, and my monastic life speak for me. I have no interest in this sort of gossip, which is wholly inappropriate for men who represent the Church of Christ and which is, at least in the case of laymen, more properly answered by legal action, in my opinion. This self-serving nonsense has long been spread about me and Metropolitan Cyprian and is simply meant to try to discredit us personally, rather than address the valid and pertinent issues that we raise in our resistance.

As for the accusation that we and the clergy of and faithful of our Sister Churches are schismatics and outside the Church, the Blessed Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) once made an interesting observation about such statements with regard to Old Calendarists and resisters. (He was himself in the New Calendar Church at the time, I should stress.) If we are to be judged in such a way, so are the Fathers of the Church who stood for the principles that we defend and who, like us, severed communion with, and walled themselves off from, those whom they considered in error. Let the fact that we do not visit such compliments on those whom we believe to be in error speak for us, as well.

I did, indeed, read Archbishop Demetrios' presentation, which was clear and intelligent, as one would expect from such an erudite and dedicated Churchman, whom I in many ways greatly admire. However, I would take exception, despite his good intentions, with the manner in which unity and the pressing problems of the Church, today, were examined in his keynote address at this meeting. (I keep in mind, of course, that he was not expressing only his personal views but those of the Archdiocese and the Oecumenical Patriarchate, as well.)

At a time when belief, the daily practice of Orthodoxy (Orthopraxy), and adherence to the Canons which regulate our Faith and how we live as Christians are waning widely, one cannot help but be unimpressed by the preoccupation of the so-called canonical Bishops with matters of administrative prerogative, jurisdictional squabbles, and so on. Archbishop Demetrios admittedly acknowledged that these latter concerns could be set aside and considered in the future, and that unity of action and purpose were the matters of the moment, but such concerns surely the elephant in the room, I am sure.

Looking at that elephant, I might just note that a number of the Bishops attending the assembly were from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, from which we derive our Apostolic Succession and with which we were in full communion for a number of years. If technicalities of who is canonical and who is outside the Church are of such moment (the mere title of the meeting attests to this fact), might I ask whether the ROCA Bishops in attendance were re-Chrismated, re-ordained, and re-Consecrated in preparation for this meeting of the "canonical" Orthodox Bishops on this continent?

If this question seems out of line or absurd, it is not. Certainly, if our Bishops are schismatics and outside the Church, then these Bishops must have been of similar status with us when they Consecrated our Bishop and when we were in communion with them. Logically, something must have been done about their former assault on the canonicity of the other Bishops represented at the meeting. Moreover, there is the further complication posed by the fact that Bishop Auxentios and I, "schismatics and outside the Church," took part in the Consecration of one of the ROCA Bishops.

While my comments may seem a bit provocative or even cynical, they nonetheless highlight what I said about the artificial nature of the way in which concerns for unity and the problems of the Church are expressed in "official" Orthodoxy today. My questions, in point of fact, are very serious and apropos, if one is to approach matters of unity and administrative authority in their full dimensions, and not in some Procrustean manner wherein "canonical" is separated from the Canons and "unity" is a preconceived "covenience" established by common consent.

Beyond this perception, I also noted that Archbishop Demetrios himself admitted that many issues in the Church today that involve serious canonical and confessional issues (the Baptism of converts, the Ordination of non-Orthodox clergy [he refers, for example to questionable acceptance of Roman Catholic clergy by vesting in some jurisdictions], relations with the non-Orthodox, etc.) remain unresolved among the so-called canonical Orthodox, who find themselves more greatly preoccupied with administrative Canons than canonical directives that touch on these matters of ecclesiology, confession, and the practice of the Faith.

You can imagine that, being accused of schism and being outside the Church, we are not overly impressed by deliberations aimed at administrative primacy and which, when they do turn to the canonical problems of Faith and confession in Orthodoxy, do so in the context of preparing for an ecumenical synod that, if one carefully reads the agendum put forth for it over the years, aims at solving these problems by "reform." Thus, instead of restoring traditional standards, those involved in these deliberations aim at revising and overturning the Canons that regulate fasting, clerical dress, the remarriage of widowed clergy, prayer and worship with the non-Orthodox, and so on. They are fixed on the very same reforms that led to the "Living Church" in Russia, after the Bolshevik Revolution, and to the reform of the Church Calendar early last century.

I have already expressed my views with regard to the spectacle of responsible, mature Churchmen discussing, even if only in private and personally, street gossip of the kind that you mention: gossip which I have excised from this note for the purpose of responding to you and sharing my response with our clergy and faithful, a number of whom have asked about the nature of this assembly and why we were not invited.

I will set aside any further reactions (and I have some) and not comment on ecumenists who disallow words like "schismatic" and "outside the Church," except when applying it to those of their own religion who happen to oppose their ecumenical excesses!

Episcopal Assembly issues message, ends with the celebration of the Divine Liturgy: ROCOR is Now Part of What Was SCOBA ENDORSES ECUMENICAL ACTIVITY

NEW YORK, NY [OCA] -- The Episcopal Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs of North and Central America closed with the celebration of the Divine Liturgy at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan Cathedral here on Friday morning, May 28, 2010.

His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, and the diocesan and auxiliary bishops of the Orthodox Church in America were among the hierarchs who communed at the Divine Liturgy celebrated by the Rev. Dr. Frank Marangos, Holy Trinity Cathedral Dean.

Assembly sessions came to a close on Thursday afternoon with the signing of a statement by the sixty-some hierarchs, the text of which reads as follows.

Episcopal Assembly

Of the Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs of North and Central America May 26-28, 2010

MESSAGE

We glorify the name of the Triune God for gathering us at this first Episcopal Assembly of this region in New York City on May 26-28, 2010 in response to the decisions of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference held at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Switzerland, from June 6-12, 2009, at the invitation of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

Gathered together in the joy of the Feast of Pentecost, we humbly recognize our calling, in our unworthiness, to serve as instruments and disciples of the Paraclete, who “holds together the whole institution of the Church” (Hymn of Vespers of Pentecost).

We honor and express gratitude to the Primates and Representatives of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches who assembled at the Ecumenical Patriarchate from October 10-12, 2008 to affirm their “unswerving position and obligation to safeguard the unity of the Orthodox Church” (Chambésy Rules of Operation, Article 5.1a) and emphasized their will and “desire for the swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements” (Message of the Primates 13.1-2)

We call to mind those who envisioned this unity in this region and strove to transcend the canonical irregularities resulting for many reasons, including geographically overlapping jurisdictions. For, just as the Lord in the Divine Eucharist is “broken and distributed, but not divided” (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), so also His Body comprises many members, while constituting His One Church.

We are grateful for the gift of the doctrinal and liturgical unity that we already share, and we are inspired by our leaders, the Heads of all the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, who proposed that which we painfully yearn for in this region, i.e., the “swift healing of every canonical anomaly” (Message of the Primates 13.2). We are also grateful that they established a fundamental process toward a canonical direction and resolution.

We are thankful to almighty God for the growth of Orthodoxy, for the preservation of our traditions, and for the influence of our communities in this region. This is indeed a miracle and a mystery.

During our gathering, and in accordance with the rules of operation of Episcopal Assemblies promulgated by the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference, we established:

1. A registry of canonical bishops (Article 6.1)

2. A committee to determine the canonical status of local communities in the region that have no reference to the Most Holy Autocephalous Churches (Article 6.2)

3. A registry of canonical clergy (Article 6.3)

4.Committees to undertake the work of the Assembly, among others including liturgical, pastoral, financial, educational,ecumenical, and legal issues (Articles 11 and 12)

5. A committee to plan for the organization of the Orthodox of the region on a canonical basis (Article 5.1).

In addition to the above, we agreed that a directory would be created and maintained by the Assembly of all canonical congregations in our region.

We as Episcopal Assembly understand ourselves as being the successors of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA), assuming its agencies, dialogues, and other ministries.

Moreover, at the formal request of the Hierarchs who have jurisdiction in Canada, the Assembly will submit to the Ecumenical Patriarch, in accordance with the rules of operation (Article 13), a request to partition the present region of North and Central America into two distinct regions of the United States and Canada. Additionally, at the request of the Hierarchs who have jurisdiction in Mexico and Central America, the Assembly will likewise request to merge Mexico and Central America with the Assembly of South America.

As Orthodox Hierarchs in this blessed region, we express our resolve to adhere to and adopt the regulations proposed by the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and approved by the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and to do everything in our power by the grace of God to advance actions that facilitate canonical order in our region.

We confess our fidelity to the Apostolic Orthodox faith and pledge to promote “common action to address the pastoral needs of Orthodox living in our region” (Chambésy, Decision 2c). We call upon our clergy and faithful to join us in these efforts “to safeguard and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church of the region in its theological, ecclesiological, canonical, spiritual, philanthropic, educational and missionary obligations” (Article 5.1) as we eagerly anticipate the Holy and Great Council.

The Assembly concluded with the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on Friday, May 28, 2010 at the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan Cathedral in New York City. During the Liturgy prayers were offered for the repose of the eleven victims of the current ecological disaster in the Gulf Coast, for the consolation of their families, for all those adversely affected by this catastrophe, as well as for all people living under conditions of war, persecution, violence, and oppression.

Of the sixty-six Hierarchs in the region, the following 55 were present at this Assembly:

Archbishop Demetrios, Chairman
Metropolitan Philip, Vice Chairman
Archbishop Justinian, Vice Chairman
Bishop Basil, Secretary
Archbishop Antony, Treasurer
Metropolitan Iakovos
Metropolitan Constantine
Metropolitan Athenagoras
Metropolitan Methodios
Metropolitan Isaiah
Metropolitan Nicholas
Metropolitan Alexios
Metropolitan Nikitas
Metropolitan Nicholas
Metropolitan Gerasimos
Metropolitan Evangelos
Metropolitan Paisios
Archbishop Yurij
Bishop Christopher
Bishop Vikentios
Bishop Savas
Bishop Andonios
Bishop Ilia
Bishop Ilarion
Bishop Andriy
Bishop Demetrios
Bishop Daniel
Bishop Antoun
Bishop Joseph
Bishop Thomas
Bishop Mark
Bishop Alexander
Metropolitan Hilarion
Bishop Iov
Bishop Gabriel
Bishop Peter
Bishop Theodosius
Bishop George
Bishop Ieronim
Metropolitan Christopher
Bishop Maxim
Archbishop Nicolae
Bishop Ioan Casian
Metropolitan Joseph
Metropolitan Jonah
Archbishop Nathaniel
Archbishop Seraphim
Bishop Nikon
Bishop Tikhon
Bishop Benjamin
Bishop Melchisedek
Bishop Irineu
Bishop Irinee
Bishop Michael

(Russian Bishops In Itallics: MP, ROCOR, OCA resp.)



http://www.oca.org/news/2168

МОНИТОРИНГ СМИ: Архиепископ Егорьевский Марк: объединение РПЦ МП и РПЦЗ(Л) изменило психологию верующих

Акт о каноническом единстве Русской православной церкви и Русской православной церкви за границей, подписанный ровно три года назад, позволил изменить психологию верующих и воспринять представителей той или иной Церкви без тени конкуренции, ревности и недоверия, уверен секретарь Московской патриархии по зарубежным учреждениям архиепископ Егорьевский Марк.

Три года назад (17 мая 2007 года) ныне покойными патриархом Московским и всея Руси Алексием Вторым и первоиерархом РПЦЗ митрополитом Восточно-Американским и Нью-Йоркским Лавром был подписан Акт о каноническом общении - фактически, воссоединении РПЦ и РПЦЗ. Отделение РПЦЗ от РПЦ произошло в начале прошлого века из-за революции, гражданской войны и гонений на религию со стороны государства.

"Началось полноценное общение, началась, я бы сказал, совместная жизнь. Представители Русской православной церкви и Русской православной церкви за рубежом начинают лучше узнавать друг друга и уже не воспринимают друг друга как конкурентов", - заявил секретарь Московской патриархии по зарубежным учреждениям архиепископ Егорьевский Марк.

Об этом свидетельствуют, по его словам, совместные богослужения, паломничества представителей РПЦ и РПЦЗ, принесение икон.

Архиепископ отметил, что коренным образом поменялись отношение, менталитет, психология православных верующих.

"Происходит главное - сдвиг в мышлении людей, которые воспринимают уже друг друга без тени конкуренции, без тени ревности, без недоверия. Сейчас мы воспринимаем друг друга как братьев и сестер, как членов одной Церкви. Это касается и архипастырей, и священников, и мирян", - сказал он.

Он отметил, что объединение Церквей три года назад было событием значительным, оно широко освещалось и вызвало большой резонанс. С тех пор, по его словам, состоялись многочисленные поездки иерархов Церквей друг к другу, совместные богослужения, паломничества, в том числе поездки иерархов по странам Латинской Америки, в том числе и с участием патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла и представителей зарубежной церкви.

Владыка напомнил также о принесении Курской Коренной иконы "Знамение", главной святыни русского зарубежья. После 90-летнего перерыва икона была привезена на место обретения осенью 2009 года.

"Икона "Курская Коренная" вызвала огромный интерес верующих. Святейший патриарх, в частности, говорил, что никогда не видел такого большого стечения людей", - сказал Марк.

Он добавил, что были также привезены в Россию мощи великомученицы Елизаветы из Иерусалима.

Кроме того, сообщил архиепископ, православный студенческий форум "Вера и дело", который пройдет в мае в Москве, будет направлен на сближение представителей приходов РПЦ и РПЦЗ.

"Это проект ориентирован на молодежь, на то, чтобы она общалась, а также защищала приходы как в России, так и за границей", - добавил он.

По его словам, принесение икон, богослужения делаются для "нормального полноценного братского общения", для "полноценного церковного общения".

Владыка Марк также рассказал о том, что РПЦ активно помогает кадрами РПЦЗ и посылает священников для служения на приходах зарубежной церкви.

"Например, мы послали священника в Канны. У нас служат священники в Иерусалиме. Мы послали священников из московских ставропигиальных монастырей в Иерусалим для служения в монастыре Марии Магдалины", - добавил он.

Он отметил, что планируется направление монахинь в Новодивеевский женский православный монастырь в США. Кроме того, несколько студентов московской духовной академии и семинарии поехали учиться в Свято-Троицкую духовную семинарию (Джорданвиль) в Нью-Йорке.

Он подчеркнул, что в ближайшем будущем необходимо углублять и развивать общение, обмениваться опытом между Церквями и "обогащать" друг друга.

В разъяснении к Акту о каноническом общении, восстановившему единство Русской церкви, сказано, что с его подписанием РПЦЗ утратила свой "временный канонический статус, обусловленный существованием в России безбожной власти".

Теперь РПЦЗ "пребывает неотъемлемой самоуправляемой частью поместной Русской православной церкви". Она "самостоятельна в делах пастырских, просветительных, административных, хозяйственных, имущественных и гражданских, состоя при этом в каноническом единстве со всей полнотой Русской православной церкви". "Вышестоящей инстанцией церковной власти" для РПЦЗ стали Поместный и Архиерейский Собор Русской православной церкви. Первоиерарх РПЦЗ избирается ее Архиерейским Собором и утверждается патриархом Московским и всея Руси и Священным Синодом РПЦ.

Ряд приходов Русской зарубежной церкви ушли в раскол после подписания в мае 2007 года Акта о каноническом общении.

РИА "НОВОСТИ", 18 мая 2010 г.


http://portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=77795

“Holiness cannot be feigned, one must strive towards holiness.”

We offer our readers an interview held prior to the IV All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia held in May 2006 in San Francisco, CA. The Council drew up and adopted, among other things, an Epistle to the Flock, which in particular illuminates the spiritual meaning of the process of reestablishing the fullness of brotherly communion within the one Russian Orthodox Church. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus of Eastern America and New York, in an interview granted to Igor Smykov, Chief of the Military Orthodox Mission who heads social projects for Ekonomicheskije strategii [Economic Strategies] discusses the reasons why during the first years of the Soviet state, a division occurred between the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church, and gives his opinion on perspectives for dialog between them, explaining the mission of the Russian ecclesiastical emigration.

Your Eminence, in your opinion, how are we to view the relationship between the Orthodox Church and government in Russia today? How does the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia see the political, economic and social processes taking place in Russia today?

The relationship between the Church and state in Russia were very complicated, even tragic, in the 20th century. The Bolsheviks who came to power as a result of the events of 1917 set as their goal the construction of a godless society and the cultivation of the “new man” for this society. The struggle against religion was based not only on their atheist world view, but upon an effort to eliminate a dangerous competitor in the spiritual life of the nation. The situation began to change in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The persecution of the Church and of believers ceased, churches and monasteries were being opened and restored and returned to the believers. Religious literature began to be disseminated. The opportunity arose to provide a religious education to children. The state does not now hinder this positive process. The conflict between Church and state has faded into the past. The government does not strive to destroy the Orthodox Church or “ghettoize” it. This is very important. Still, not all problems have been resolved, and Church-state relations in Russia must continue to be resolved and perfected. We find the ideal in this kind of relationship in the preface to the Novella 6 of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian the Great. There it states; “if the priesthood is well ordered in everything and is pleasing to God, and kingdom [the state]… is guiding and taking care of human affairs… then there will be full harmony [symphony] between them in every thing that serves the good and benefit of the human race.” After many long years, when Church-state relations bore an exclusively negative character, the experience of cooperation and joint constructiveness cannot suddenly reappear, and a great deal of work needs to be done in this regard.

The political, economic and social processes under way in Russia are viewed in a variety of ways in the Russian Church Abroad. There are many positive and negative phenomena. The monopoly of the Communist Party has collapsed along with its godless ideology, the Cold War has ended. Russia ceased to be a source of Communist peril to the world, it strives now for cooperation with its surrounding nations. On the other hand, the weakened government has led to nationalistic conflicts on almost all the borders of the former USSR. A series of regional wars has been sparked. The multi-party system has on one hand given the people an opportunity to choose freely and participate in the life of their country, and on the other hand has opened the door to many irresponsible demagogues thirsting for power.

The main negative aspects in the economy are of course high taxes, rampant corruption and crime.

The quality of life of the population and the economic indicators are very modest compared with other countries. According to official, understated statistics, 30% of Russians live below the poverty line, while a small group of the “fortunate,” the “new Russians,” are bathing in luxury. People find it hard to survive, difficult to rear children, provide for their aging parents with the dignity they deserve. Here, abroad, we see how many of the new emigres leave Russia for this very reason. They are spurred to abandon their Fatherland for the sake of stability, a decent life, well being and social justice. Many leave in order to send help to their parents, relatives and children back home. The source of the new wave of emigration is the negative aspects of economic and social life in Russia. The main goal of any government is the well being of its subjects, and not only material but spiritual, too. Yet we are still far away from well being in Russia.

What are the perspectives for dialog between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? If possible, please explain to our readers how and why the division arose in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Many think that the reason for the division between the Russian Orthodox Church into the ROCOR and MP was the Civil War. This is untrue. The Russian people, because of the Revolution, found themselves divided. The Russian diaspora emerged, but the Russian Orthodox Church remained one. After the end of the Civil War, the bishops who found themselves abroad commemorated His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, then his Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Kirill of Krutitsa. The main reason for the division of the Russian Church was actually the Declaration of Metropolitan Serius (Stragorodsky) of 1927. In this document, he recognized the Soviet government as a lawful Russian state which tended to the care of the people, “whose joys are our joys and whose sorrows are our sorrows.” At the same time, in accordance to an agreement he received from the Soviet state, Metropolitan Sergius requested of the clergymen abroad loyalty to the Bolshevik government. Metropolitan Sergius himself could hardly have expected that anyone abroad would heed his ukase. It was obvious that he did this to fulfill the demands of the Soviet government. Naturally, the hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad, headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), staunchly refused to vow fealty to the Soviets, and issued a clear refusal. From that moment, relations between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate ceased. Yet this did not mean that a separate ecclesiastical organization originated in the Russian diaspora. The Russian Church Abroad always considered itself a part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church. It was in spiritual unity with Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, who was suffering in exile in the north. His name was commemorated in all the churches of the Russian emigration, along with the prayer for the suffering nation of Russia and for her deliverance from the bitter persecution from the godless state. For all these years, remaining true to our Fatherland, we did not recognize the state as lawful, for it went against the thousand-year world-view of our people. We went abroad in order not to submit to this government. Another reason which deepened the rift between the two parts of the Russian Church was that the Moscow Patriarchate joined the World Council of Churches in 1961, and participated in the ecumenical movement. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia condemned as heresy and anathematized the teaching that the Church divided into many branches, each of which allegedly contains a part of the truth.

By the will of God, many Russian people found themselves abroad. What was, and is, the mission of the Russian diaspora?

Yesterday and today and going forward, the main mission of the Russian church emigration is to preserve and expand the unadulterated Orthodox faith and legacy of Holy Russia in the diaspora. The main goal of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is the salvation of the souls of its flock. But time, of course, leaves its mark on our work. In earlier years our existence was determined by the need to preserve the free nation of Russia and resist the atheistic Communism which enslaved our Homeland. With the fall of the atheist regime, such resistance lost its purpose. Now there are very many of yesterday’s Soviet people living abroad, people who were born and raised under official atheism. When they travel abroad, they often come to the Church, seeing in it their only connection with their Homeland, a place where they can meet their compatriots, and find solace in a difficult moment. But in religious terms, these people are unlearned. The often don’t know the simplest things. This is taken advantage of right and left by various sectarians, who draw in Russians who have been torn away from their Homeland into their snares. If the previous emigration was mostly church-going, the new emigration must be brought into the church, adults as well as children, and in this area, our Church has a great deal of work to do. It is the Church Abroad specifically that gives the emigres spiritual strength, uniting them, protecting them from fading away and losing the Orthodox faith, and together with the faith, the Russian culture created by Orthodox Christianity. Yet it is not only Russians who comprise our flock. By Divine Providence, being scattered throughout many nations, our Church disseminates Orthodox Christianity among the peoples around us. Work with the newly-converted is another important aspect of the work of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Among our flock, clergymen, the students of Holy Trinity Seminary, are representatives of the widest scope of nationalities who came to Orthodoxy from various heresies and sects. The Lord has given our Church the task of bearing witness of Orthodox Christianity to all the peoples “who know Him not,” and this mission is very important and a great responsibility.

Over the course of decades, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia refused to have contact with the Orthodox bishops of Moscow, since Metropolitan Sergius issued the declaration you mentioned in 1927 vowing loyalty of the Church to the Soviet state. What obstacles do you now see for the reunification of the two parts of the Russian Church? What is the basic mission of ROCOR in Russia at the present time?

Until recently, there has been a series of obstacles for reconciliation between the Russian Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate. Some of them we already discussed. Matters which divide us have been discussed on the church-commission level. The Synod of Bishops adopted documents on these issues, and they are being passed on for consideration to the forthcoming Council of Bishops.

The main mission of the Russian Church Abroad in Russia today is to familiarize the Russian Orthodox people with the legacy of our Russian diaspora. After the Revolution, eminent theologians, hierarchs, the flowers of Russian culture found themselves abroad. The first Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was an eminent theologian, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of blessed memory. Metropolitan Anastassy and Metropolitan Philaret, his successors, left a series of writings and sermons. Other bright figures in Orthodox theology were Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky); Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky; Bishop Mitrophan (Znosko-Borovsky); Bishop Gregory (Grabbe); Archbishop Averky (Taushev); Archimandrite Konstantin (Zaitsev); the historian ND Talberg, Professor Andreevsky and many others. It is enough to say that the most famous Russian textbook “The Law of God” was written by Protopriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, a priest in the town of Nyack, near New York City. Such renowned writers and thinkers as IA Ilyin and IS Shmelev were very close to the Russian Church Abroad. Throughout these years, theological, literary and philosophical thought flourished.

But it is not only acquainting Russians with the emigration’s history that is the purpose of our Church in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia always strove to support those forces in Russian society which stand firm in the positions of the Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers and Russian patriotism. We wish to see the Russian Church preserve the purity and fullness of the Orthodox Christian faith, and to see the Russian state flourish and be strong, as it was under the pious Tsars.

What made the greatest impression upon you during your official visit to Russia?

I have been to Russia several times, unofficially, on a personal basis. The first time was in 1994. I was able to visit the central region of Russia, Moscow and the closest cities, with their holy sites, and also Northwest Russia—Novgorod, Pksov and St Petersburg. After that I visited Russia a few more times, in particular in the North—St Petersburg, Valaam, Solovetsky Monastery and Anzer Island.

During my most recent visit to Moscow, I was amazed by the splendor of Christ the Savior Cathedral, which was already having divine services. But I was especially struck by my visit to Ekaterinburg, to the sites where the Royal prisoners were imprisoned and martyred: Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, his entire family and servants. The site of Ipatiev House is now the home of the grand Church-on-the-Blood in honor of All Russian Saints and the Royal Family. This is the Russian Golgotha. One can say that the entire land here is bathed in the blood of the Royal Martyrs. We were there in May, during the feast day of St Nicholas the Miracle-worker. Despite the fact that it was during the week, the Cathedral was overflowing with worshipers. There are seven churches on the premises. During Liturgy we were in St Nicholas Church, then we visited Alapaevsk and prayed where Grand Duchess Elizabeth and Nun Varvara and those with them met their martyric death. We were all thankful to the Lord for His great mercy: we were able to visit these holy places and pray there! We were also grateful that there are wonderful churches built on these sites, and that divine services are constantly being celebrated there. Worshipers come from all ends of Russia, and even abroad, year round, to pray here.

We visited Diveevo and the relics of St Seraphim of Sarov. There we prayed as we walked along the canal, we spent the night at Diveevo and went to Liturgy at the cathedral the next day. It was good to see the monastery reborn, it is adorned with renovated churches and new buildings. I was there in 1994 the first time, when the monastery was just handed over to the Church. At the time there were only 107 women living there, who rebuilt it from the ruins. Now there are some 600 monastics there.

Vladyko, Divine Providence holds something for each nation. What is the historical calling of Russia and of the Russian people? Is it possible to reestablish the Third Rome?

The idea of the Third Rome has lived in the mind of the people for many long years: “Two Romes have fallen, a Third stands, a fourth shall not be…” One might say that under the pious Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, Russia stood as the Third Rome—the spiritual heir and sole protector of Orthodox sovereignties. Still living then were Russians who—from the Royal Court to the furthest hut—confessed Orthodox Christianity, a national Russian Orthodoxy, a patriotic world view. It was the binding force which made the Russian people united in the government and in Orthodoxy, and made Russia the Third Rome. But the tragedy of Russia was that from long ago, even from the 18th century, other, alien tendencies came to rise within the Russian people, foreign to true Orthodoxy, and taken up by atheists and revolutionaries. These dark forces, inimical to Orthodox Russia, seduced and perverted the people, and opened the path towards that horrifying era of atheism and Communism.

Will Russian rise once again as the Third Rome? Another question necessarily lies behind this one—he matter of the “symphony of powers,” of the powers of the state and the spiritual authority of the Church. But when we speak of the spiritual authority of the Church, it is important to understand what the Church represents. The emigre theologian, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, would say: “If people cross themselves, make prostrations, kiss the icons, light candles, take a priest’s blessing, drink holy water, this does not mean that these people are Christians. For pagans, too, when they worship their idols, participate in rituals. A true Christian is one who has made the Gospel Law the main law of his life, who seeks to obtain the grace of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, these are not Christians.” So it is more correct to call the Church a society of saints. Indeed, the Lord, in the Gospel, and the Apostles in their epistles call Christians “saints”: “Be holy, for I am holy.” One can say that the “symphony of powers” is the symphony of holiness and the state which bows down before holiness and protects her holy Church, and the Tsar, defending the Church, laying down the Royal Purple before Christ.

This is what it was like in newly-baptized Rus. The Illuminator and transformer of Rus’, Holy Prince Vladimir, Equal-to-the-Apostles, was able to transform his state from a pagan one to a Christian one, because he himself venerated holiness, and was able to uproot his own soul and life, “having first of good will subjected the Royal Purple to Christ,” changing from a coarse pagan to a true Christian, combining “piety with power.” The Holy Church calls Holy Prince Vladimir, Equal-to-the-Apostles, “the highest of the Russian princes,” since he was not only the progenitor of all the Russian princes, the rulers of the Russian state, but the first princely saint in a host of such holy Russian princes. Not one nation had so many holy rulers. One can say that in Ancient Rus’, almost everyone who showed himself in the ecclesiastical, political or cultural life of the country, who left a mark on its history, was a saint.

“Piety and power” were united by the son of St Vladimir, Prince Yaroslav the Wise, while Prince Vladimir Monomakh was his worthy great-grandson. It is significant that in the nation’s fables, these two Vladimir—Equal-to-the-Apostles and Monomakh—are united into the image of “Vladimir the Beautiful Sun.” Important, too, is that Elder Filofei of Eleazarov Monastery, who first proposed the concept of the Third Rome said that the idea that “Moscow is the Third Rome” can be manifested only on the condition that the ruler of the Russian land “holds the reins of the holy churches of God… a holy supporter of the Orthodox Christian faith,” that he does not overstep the holy laws laid down by his forefathers, Holy Prince Vladimir and Prince Yaroslav, who was chosen by God.

Many holy men, for instance, Joseph Volotsky, warned that if the Tsar submits to passions and exceeds his authority, then “such a tsar is not a servant of God, but a devil, and is not a tsar, but a tormentor.” Patriarch Nikon, defending the Church from temporal powers, stated outright: “If the Church submits to the powers of the world, it is not a Church but a house of men and a den of thieves.”

What relationship could the Church, which preserves holiness, have with the Satanic, god-battling state? In the 1920’s, all honest bishops and priests loyal to the Church were of one mind in recognizing their pastoral duties and services as preserving the souls of the people, who were being degraded by the incursion of materialism and the theory of class struggle, hatred and vengeance, who saw their duty not in active resistance to the Soviet state, but in passive martyrdom.

In conclusion, I would like to say the following: We must all remember that holiness cannot be feigned, one must strive towards holiness: to constantly follow Christ on the path of the Cross, and in selfless service to God and mankind. Imitating holiness will only lead to hypocrisy, in the words of St Ignatius (Brianchaninov), towards wickedness. It is very important to preserve the legacy of St Seraphim given to the nuns of Diveevo Convent: “Preserve your conscience. The conscience is what is most needed.”Otherwise, a very dangerous situation may arise in Russia: the external imitation of the “symphony” of Holy Russia by the state through deception that “symphony,” concord and mutual understanding have already been achieved. And even interchangeability, if by some circumstances the ecclesiastical and civil leadership changed hands, that no one would notice a difference, because the internal and external clergy meld more and more with the civil authorities. This path is fraught with peril. The true path is that of the Gospel, and that means the narrow path of one’s conscience, of earnestness and honesty.

Moscow-Jordanville, 2006.
Published in Ekonomicheskije strategii [Economic Strategies] magazine, No. 4, 2006.




http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_mlmemory10.html